PM Surya Ghar Feasibility Demo

Three fixes to make PM Surya Ghar work for India's apartment cities — working prototype attached

===================================================

Respected Shri Pralhad Joshi ji,

I write as a 90-plus-year-old Mumbai resident who has followed PM Surya Ghar: Muft Bijli Yojana with great hope. The Ministry's plan to launch a WhatsApp bot that lets a household estimate its subsidy, cost and savings is an excellent idea, and I congratulate you on it.

[  https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/renewables/govt-plans-whatsapp-bot-for-pm-surya-ghar-scheme-to-help-households-estimate-subsidies-costs-and-savings/articleshow/131491419.cms ]

But the bot, as conceived, will quietly disappoint the crores of families it should serve most: those living in multi-storey buildings in our cities. I first set this out in my blog of 15 February 2024, "Surya Ghar: Missing the Wood for the Trees," and the gap has only widened since.

THE BLIND SPOT, IN REAL NUMBERS

A 3 kW system needs about 300 sq ft of clear terrace. A city building's terrace simply cannot provide that for every flat. In February 2024 I surveyed five Mumbai buildings myself:

-  Andheri: 24 flats, 1,500 sq ft terrace, enough for about 5 flats

-  Vile Parle: 20 flats, 1,500 sq ft, about 3 flats

-  Powai: 54 flats, 3,000 sq ft, about 10 flats

-  Kandivali: 16 flats, 2,200 sq ft, about 7 flats

-  Chandivali: 49 flats, 2,000 sq ft, about 7 flats

In every case the terrace serves barely 10 to 20 per cent of flats. From my own 10th-floor window in Andheri I look down upon a hundred terraces and cannot spot even one rooftop installation. Set against the more than 26 lakh installations the Ministry has reported to Parliament, the message is plain: the scheme is succeeding in independent houses and bypassing urban apartments almost entirely.

I therefore urge three connected changes, all demonstrated in the working prototype I attach as Annexure A:

1.  LET THE BOT TELL THE TRUTH. Driven by the consumer / bill number (which the DISCOM already holds), it should compute the required kW, the terrace that kW demands, and weigh it against the terrace available per flat, returning an honest FEASIBLE or NOT FEASIBLE rather than false hope.

2.  FOR THE MAJORITY WHO CANNOT FIT A ROOFTOP, SUPPLY THE POWER FROM ELSEWHERE. Let REC / CPSE / SPVs build large solar farms (about 1 GW each) on government land near each city, feed that power to the local DISCOM free of cost, and let the DISCOM supply multi-storey families at a small carrying charge: a society-level rooftop plant for what the terrace allows, and the city solar farm for the balance. Then every eligible family gets solar power, not merely the few on the top floor.

3.  STOP ASKING CITIZENS TO "APPLY" AT ALL. This is the heart of the matter. The registration form asks for State, DISCOM, consumer number, mobile and email, every one of which the DISCOM already has. In seconds, a DISCOM can list every consumer whose 12-month average is below 300 units, tabulate them building by building, and send each one a pre-filled message: "You qualify. Reply YES for a site survey, NO to opt out." For those without email, a line on the next monthly bill, flagged by SMS, will do. No forms, no data re-entry, and no eligible family left out.

A bot, and a scheme, that tell a citizen the truth and then point to the route that actually works will earn far more trust, and will turn this Yojana into a genuine benchmark for the Global South.

The attached prototype (Annexure A) demonstrates all three ideas, using the five real buildings above; tapping any one shows the honest verdict and the two-part supply route in a single click.

I would be honoured if the Ministry would consider these suggestions.

With deep respect and warm regards,

Hemen Parekh

Mumbai

www.hemenparekh.in

==========================================================================

PM Surya Ghar : Muft Bijli Yojana  ·  Working Prototype

Rooftop Solar — Feasibility & the Honest Path Forward

Before promising subsidy and savings, the scheme must answer one question first: can your rooftop actually hold the panels you need — and if not, how else do you get solar power?

Annexure to representation by Hemen Parekh, Mumbai

What this demonstrates. An enhancement to the planned PM Surya Ghar WhatsApp bot, built around a point I first set out in my blog of 15 February 2024. The bot should (1) run an honest terrace-area feasibility test; (2) where an individual rooftop cannot fit, route the family to a society plant plus city-solar-farm supply; and (3) ultimately need no "application" at all, because the DISCOM already holds every consumer's data. This standalone file demonstrates the logic; the live version would draw on real DISCOM data.

The blind spot — five real Mumbai buildings I surveyed

Not hypotheticals. Actual figures I gathered in February 2024. Tap any building to load it into the calculator below.

Locality	Units / month	Flats	Terrace (sq ft)	Flats it can serve
Andheri	450	24	1,500	5 of 24 (21%)
Vile Parle	500	20	1,500	3 of 20 (15%)
Powai	350	54	3,000	10 of 54 (19%)
Kandivali	350	16	2,200	7 of 16 (44%)
Chandivali	220	49	2,000	7 of 49 (14%)

Across these five buildings, the terrace can serve barely 10–20% of flats. The other 80–90% of urban families have nowhere to put a panel. ↑ Tap a row to test it.

1Your connection

City / TownMumbaiDelhiPuneBengaluruHyderabadChennai

Electricity Provider (DISCOM)Adani ElectricityTata PowerBEST

Consumer Number / Latest Bill Number

In production: the bot reads your monthly consumption and address straight from this bill — in fact, the DISCOM need not ask at all (see the panel below). For this demo, please enter the few fields below.

2Your home

Average monthly consumption (units / kWh)

Type of dwelling

The bigger fix — missing the wood for the trees

Why ask anyone to "apply" at all?

The registration form asks the citizen for State, DISCOM, consumer number, mobile and email — every one of which the DISCOM already holds. The whole "apply on the portal" model is back-to-front. Let the DISCOM drive it instead:

1

In seconds, the DISCOM queries its own database for every consumer whose 12-month average is under 300 units — the eligibility line — and tabulates them building by building.

2

It runs the feasibility test above for each building, and sends eligible consumers a pre-filled message: "You qualify. Reply YES for a site survey, NO to opt out." No form, no data re-entry.

3

For flats a rooftop cannot serve, the same message offers the city-solar-farm supply route — so every eligible family gets an answer, not just the lucky few on the top floor.

Prototype prepared for Hemen Parekh as an annexure to a representation to the Hon'ble Minister,

 Ministry of New & Renewable Energy.

A self-contained demonstration of logic only — figures are illustrative. The production system would

 integrate live DISCOM billing data and state net-metering rules.

www.hemenparekh.in

Merit List Under Scrutiny

Synopsis: Last year’s engineering merit list has reignited a debate about how we rank young candidates — with claims that students with low board marks secured top CET percentiles and the CET Cell firmly denying any irregularity. I look at the allegations, the evidence being cited, the official response and what an independent audit would need to prove to restore confidence.

Summary of the controversy

I’ve been following recent coverage about questions raised over last year’s engineering merit list, and the story sits at an uncomfortable intersection of statistics, trust and student futures. Complainants say the published merit list shows a number of candidates with surprisingly low Class 10/12 marks who nonetheless appear among the top percentile scorers in the CET; the CET Cell has issued an official denial and called the allegations baseless Indian Express, Free Press Journal.

What complainants are alleging (summary of allegations)

• Selective comparisons: critics point to students whose board marks in Physics/Chemistry/Mathematics (PCM) or overall Class 12 totals were reportedly low, yet who appear with very high CET percentiles — in some cited examples, candidates with board marks well below typical topper ranges have figures at or near the 100th CET percentile New Indian Express, Careers360.
• Specific data points being shared in public briefings and social posts: lists of candidates, comparative board scores and CET percentiles are being circulated by complainants as the primary evidence.

Timeline (as reported)

• July (previous year): provisional merit list for engineering admissions was published; a viral video soon circulated alleging discrepancies in some top-ranked candidates’ prior school marks compared with CET percentiles Indian Express.
• May (this year): political and civic actors renewed pressure, citing compiled data and demanding a formal inquiry into last year’s merit list; media outlets reported on the calls for a probe and on the CET Cell’s public clarification denying irregularities Free Press Journal, New Indian Express.

Key stakeholders

• Students and parents: those directly affected by allocations and by the reputational consequences if lists are disputed.
• The CET Cell and its officials: the exam authority that prepared and published the merit list and issued the official clarification.
• Colleges and admission authorities: institutions that relied on the published list for seat allocation and counselling.
• Legal/regulatory bodies: courts and education regulators who may be called on to adjudicate disputes or order fresh audits.

CET’s official denial (official statement)

The CET Cell has issued written clarifications asserting that there were no errors in the merit list and explaining differences between percentiles and percentages. In an official statement it said: "There is a difference between calculation between percentile and percentage. The method of calculation is declared before the CET exams and the candidates are well versed with it. The performance of a candidate in CET cannot be compared with his/her Performance in HSC exam as candidates focus the effort and study on CET exams as it is an eligibility test for admission." The Cell also maintained the process was "completely transparent" and said "no irregularities or scam have taken place" Indian Express, Free Press Journal.

Evidence cited by complainants

• Publicly circulated tables comparing board marks and CET percentiles for specific rank-holders.
• Counts of candidates who appear to have scored the 100th CET percentile alongside modest board marks (reports cite numbers across sessions and a set of candidates claimed to have top percentiles) Indian Express, New Indian Express.

Possible explanations (neutral)

• Genuine performance variance: standardized tests and board exams measure different skills and a student can perform very differently across them.
• Percentile and normalization effects: percentiles are relative measures; session-to-session standardisation and normalization can produce unexpected rank shifts if sample composition varies.
• Data or clerical errors: mistaken data-entry, incorrect mapping between registration numbers and scores, or publication errors could produce anomalies.
• Malfeasance: deliberate manipulation — an allegation that requires independent proof.

Independent experts — two short perspectives

• Assessment specialist: A testing expert would stress the importance of understanding how percentiles are calculated and how normalization across sessions works. They would recommend transparent publication of item-level statistics and session normalization parameters before drawing conclusions.
• Statistician: A statistician would point out that outliers do occur; however, an audit of raw answer sheets, logs, and normalization calculations is the right next step to distinguish legitimate outliers from errors or manipulation.

Potential consequences

• For students: uncertainty and stress for candidates whose placements may be questioned; delayed admissions or reputational harm for rank-holders.
• For institutions: colleges may face administrative headaches and potential legal challenges over seat allocations made on the basis of the contested list.
• For public trust: repeated, unresolved controversies erode confidence in public testing systems, which is damaging for a merit-based admission ecosystem.

Next steps and how stakeholders can follow up

• Request an independent audit: publish a transparent, independent forensic audit of the merit-list preparation process, including data logs, normalization algorithms and test-session metadata.
• Publish explanatory material: the CET Cell should make public the methodology, session-normalisation steps and (where privacy permits) anonymised statistics showing score distributions by session.
• Legal and regulatory review: if credible evidence of error or wrongdoing emerges, regulatory bodies or courts may need to review and, if necessary, order corrective measures.

For those tracking the issue: follow official CET Cell releases and reputable coverage (for background reporting see links from major outlets) while avoiding circulating unverified personal data.

Closing

I believe the right response here is procedural: demand transparency, conduct a narrow independent audit focused on the technical questions raised, and protect student interests while the facts are established. Until an audit is completed, strong claims about motive or fraud do more harm than good — but neither should that slow a careful, public review that restores confidence.

---

Regards,
Hemen Parekh

---

Any questions / doubts / clarifications regarding this blog? Just ask (by typing or talking) my Virtual Avatar on the website embedded below. Then "Share" that to your friend on WhatsApp.

Get correct answer to any question asked by Shri Amitabh Bachchan on Kaun Banega Crorepati, faster than any contestant

Hello Candidates :

• For UPSC – IAS – IPS – IFS etc., exams, you must prepare to answer, essay type questions which test your General Knowledge / Sensitivity of current events
• If you have read this blog carefully , you should be able to answer the following question:

"What is the difference between a percentile and a percentage, and how can normalization across test sessions affect merit lists?"

• Need help ? No problem . Following are two AI AGENTS where we have PRE-LOADED this question in their respective Question Boxes . All that you have to do is just click SUBMIT
  1. www.HemenParekh.ai { a SLM , powered by my own Digital Content of more than 50,000 + documents, written by me over past 60 years of my professional career }
  2. www.IndiaAGI.ai { a consortium of 3 LLMs which debate and deliver a CONSENSUS answer – and each gives its own answer as well ! }
• It is up to you to decide which answer is more comprehensive / nuanced ( For sheer amazement, click both SUBMIT buttons quickly, one after another ) Then share any answer with yourself / your friends ( using WhatsApp / Email ). Nothing stops you from submitting ( just copy / paste from your resource ), all those questions from last year’s UPSC exam paper as well !
• May be there are other online resources which too provide you answers to UPSC “ General Knowledge “ questions but only I provide you in 26 languages !

Interested in having your LinkedIn profile featured here?

Submit a request.

Executives You May Want to Follow or Connect

Balavignesh Subramani

Managing Director

Managing Director | Pioneering Solutions in Mining, Renewable Energy, Infrastructure, Logistics & EV | Focused on Industry Transformation & Growth · A ...

Loading views...

Rumit Dugar

Chief Financial Officer

Driving the finance (CFO) & strategy function along with investor relations for India's unique public listed Fintech start-up. Part of the board appointed ...

Loading views...

rumit.dugar@bluestone.com

Ganapathy Subramaniam (GS)

Chief Financial Officer @ TerraPay

Currently CFO at TerraPay a FinTech start-up. Served as an independent director and chaired Audit committees in listed companies (Krone Communications Ltd.

Loading views...

gs@terrapay.com

Narottam Shinde

Vice President, Research & Development @ Hetero

Vice President, Research & Development @ Hetero | Product Development · When I reflect on the past 21+ years of my career in pharmaceutical research and ...

Loading views...

narottam.s@heterodrugs.com

Elayaraja Natarajan

Lyrus Life Sciences

Vice President - Research And Development at Lyrus Life Sciences · Hands on ... Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd Graphic. Asst Manager - Formulation Research ...

Loading views...

elayaraja.n@lyruslife.com

People-First Cities

Synopsis: Cities inherit two design choices: move steel and rubber faster, or move people more easily. I argue that the measurable health, climate and economic benefits of designing for people—not vehicles—are reason enough to rebuild streets, prioritise walking, cycling and high-quality transit, and fix equity gaps the process creates.

I used to assume road capacity was the raw material of mobility. Then I started looking at outcomes: healthier residents, quieter streets, lower emissions, more resilient local economies. That reframes the question: if the goal is to move people efficiently and equitably, why are most cities still designed first for vehicles?

Why design for people?

When we prioritise people over vehicles we get predictable, measurable wins: more walking and cycling, fewer collisions, lower pollution, and better public life. Copenhagen and Amsterdam show that investment in protected bike lanes and pedestrian-first streets produces sustained modal shifts and satisfaction among residents Copenhagen Bicycle Account 2022 and Amsterdam cycling summaries. Barcelona’s Superblock study estimated that a city-scale shift to people-centred streets could prevent hundreds of premature deaths and add months to population life expectancy through reductions in NO2, noise, and urban heat Barcelona Superblocks HIA.

Real-world proof: Bogotá and Barcelona

Bogotá’s Ciclovía and network of ciclorrutas are not just symbolic; they changed mobility options for millions and created space for exercise and community every week. Evaluations show increased physical activity and measurable benefits to lower-income residents who access the routes, though distributional gaps remain and require active policy to close (Ciclovía studies and reviews, summary of TransMilenio and ciclorrutas impacts in technical reviews). Barcelona’s Superblock pilots show large health gains where traffic is actually reduced, but also demonstrate that partial or poorly connected implementations can redistribute traffic and blunt benefits—so design has to be systemic, not piecemeal Superblock evaluations.

Principles that change outcomes

• Prioritise continuous, safe walking and cycling networks over isolated facilities. People need routes that feel and are safe for all ages and abilities.
• Reallocate street space to make transit faster and more reliable: protected bus lanes and high-frequency service move far more people than extra through-lanes for cars.
• Design interventions to work at network scale: local pedestrianisation without citywide traffic demand measures can simply push cars elsewhere.
• Measure and iterate: count users, air quality, noise, traffic injuries and economic indicators so decisions are evidence-driven.

A practical blueprint (actionable steps)

• Short term (0–2 years)

• Repaint to create protected bike lanes on core corridors and remove curbside parking where it blocks movement.

• Convert one or two high-demand streets to transit-priority with dedicated lanes and upgraded stops.

• Launch weekly open-street days (Ciclovía-style) to build public appetite and test routings.

• Medium term (2–5 years)

• Build continuous sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, curb ramps and lighting improvements to ensure accessibility.

• Implement signal priority for buses and cycle superhighways where counts justify them.

• Enforce low-speed limits (20 km/h) in residential areas and Superblock-style interior streets.

• Long term (5+ years)

• Integrate pricing or demand-management (congestion charges, parking reforms) with reinvestment in walking, cycling and transit.

• Retrofit arterial streets with protected, separated walking/cycling space and tree canopy to reduce heat and pollution.

• Embed accessibility audits and community-led planning in every project phase.

Accessibility and equity considerations

Designing for people must be explicitly pro-equity. Evidence from Bogotá and other programs shows that simply adding amenities can privilege wealthier areas unless planners intentionally locate routes and programming where underserved communities live (equity analysis of Ciclovía access). Equity measures to adopt:

• Map access by income, age, disability and gender and prioritise interventions where gaps are largest.
• Provide guarded bike parking, low-cost bike-share and safe links to transit for peripheral neighborhoods.
• Include universal-design curb ramps, tactile paving and audible signals so people with disabilities gain, not lose, access.
• Protect affordability: pair public-space upgrades with anti-displacement measures (rent protections, community land trusts) so improvements don’t price residents out.

What to expect—and how to defend change

Expect pushback: drivers, merchants worried about parking, and political cycles create friction. Defend change with data and small wins: pilot projects, before/after counts, and local business surveys usually show that people-friendly streets increase footfall and spend. Use health and climate co-benefits in communications: cleaner air, fewer injuries, and stronger neighbourhood commerce are arguments that cross constituencies.

Conclusion: a call to action

Cities that move people, not vehicles, are healthier, more resilient and more just. The evidence is clear: connected networks, transit priority, and reclaimed public space deliver measurable benefits. If you’re a planner, advocate or mayoral advisor, start with pilots that are measurable, protect accessibility and explicitly target equity.

---

Regards,
Hemen Parekh

---

Any questions / doubts / clarifications regarding this blog? Just ask (by typing or talking) my Virtual Avatar on the website embedded below. Then "Share" that to your friend on WhatsApp.

Word count: 895 words.

Get correct answer to any question asked by Shri Amitabh Bachchan on Kaun Banega Crorepati, faster than any contestant

Hello Candidates :

• For UPSC – IAS – IPS – IFS etc., exams, you must prepare to answer, essay type questions which test your General Knowledge / Sensitivity of current events
• If you have read this blog carefully , you should be able to answer the following question:

"What are three evidence-based design changes a mid-sized city can implement within two years to prioritise people over vehicles?"

• Need help ? No problem . Following are two AI AGENTS where we have PRE-LOADED this question in their respective Question Boxes . All that you have to do is just click SUBMIT
  1. www.HemenParekh.ai { a SLM , powered by my own Digital Content of more than 50,000 + documents, written by me over past 60 years of my professional career }
  2. www.IndiaAGI.ai { a consortium of 3 LLMs which debate and deliver a CONSENSUS answer – and each gives its own answer as well ! }
• It is up to you to decide which answer is more comprehensive / nuanced ( For sheer amazement, click both SUBMIT buttons quickly, one after another ) Then share any answer with yourself / your friends ( using WhatsApp / Email ). Nothing stops you from submitting ( just copy / paste from your resource ), all those questions from last year’s UPSC exam paper as well !
• May be there are other online resources which too provide you answers to UPSC “ General Knowledge “ questions but only I provide you in 26 languages !

Interested in having your LinkedIn profile featured here?

Submit a request.

Executives You May Want to Follow or Connect

Dr Anuradha Bhatia

Head of Technology ~ CTO India

Head of Technology ~ CTO India | Distinguished Engineer - Data & AI | Member - Institute of Directors | Certified Corporate Director | Top 20 AI & Analytic ...

Loading views...

anuradha.bhatia@sc.com

Suman Datta

Executive Vice President, Chief Procurement Officer ...

... Global functional teams across the world in the areas of Materials Management, Logistics. ... Logistics (warehousing and transport) operations management ...

Loading views...

sumandatta1@lupin.com

Srinivasa Reddy

Chairman & Managing Director at Athens Global ...

Chairman & Managing Director at Athens Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. || Vice ... Operations Management, Supply Chain Optimization, and Mentorship & Team ...

Loading views...

srinivasa.reddy@athensgloballogistics.com

Avinash Rao

Managing Director & CEO at Mahindra Susten ...

Responsibilities handled include Renewable Energy Business Development (greenfield and M&A), Project Development, Commercial construction & Asset Management; ...

Loading views...

Dr. Chetan Shah

Chairman & Managing Director at Solex Group of ...

Chetan Shah. Chairman & Managing Director at Solex Group of Companies | Leading Solar PV Module Manufacturer. Solex Energy Limited Veer Narmad South Gujarat ...

Loading views...

chetan@solex.in

Claude points to Contradictions

 

Claude points to Contradictions — from 1984 to 2026

By Hemen ParekhWith a reading by Claude (Anthropic)2026

In October 1984, I stood before the Third All-India Personnel Conference and read out a paper I had called "Stray Thoughts on Prosperity Sharing — An Unsolved Issue." 

Forty-two years later I handed that same yellowed note to an artificial intelligence and asked it one question: tell me what you see.

I had expected a summary. What I got back was sharper — and a little

 unsettling. Claude did not merely describe the note. It told me that the note

 had spent thirty pages walking around a single contradiction without ever

 naming it — a contradiction I have circled, in one form or another, for four

 decades.

So here, in its own words, is what Claude found. I have let it speak plainly.

 Where it is right, it is right because the problem I posed in 1984 was never

 really an accounting problem. It was a question about justice — and justice

 does not deflate neatly into an RBI index.

Claude's reading

The note opens by demolishing the "undivided Hindu joint family" model of pay — where one man earns and the rest all eat, where parasites proliferate and non-ambition becomes the rule. The cure it reaches for is contribution-linked sharing: pay people for what they actually add.

But watch what the argument does to its own cure. Every method it tests for measuring contribution below the level of the whole company collapses. Either the job cannot be measured at all — by the note's own count, of 10,000 employees barely 1,000 had measurable output — or, where a group's contribution can be measured, it is contaminated by forces the group never controlled: a government price control, a competitor's move, a strike, a long-gestation project, the infrastructure burden of a remote location.

So the logic keeps getting pushed back up to the company-wide number — gross profit, at constant prices, per employee — because that is the only figure it can defend. And the company-wide number is exactly the joint family the note set out to abolish.

Rigorous measurement is possible only where it motivates least — the whole firm. Strong motivation is possible only where measurement is least fair — the individual.

That is the contradiction. There is no level of the organisation at which a reward

 can be both fairly measured and strongly motivating. The note circles it

 honestly and never says it out loud. Modern incentive economics has a name

 for one half of it — the "1/N problem," where a profit pool split across N

 people leaves each with a vanishing personal stake. My 1984 critique of the

 joint family was the 1/N problem, stated in human terms before economists

 dressed it in algebra.

The paradox the note circled for thirty pages: where pay can be fairly measured, it barely motivates — and where it motivates, it cannot be fairly measured.

II.Six claimants, written in 1984 — the same year the world's textbooks caught up

The note lists the legitimate claimants to a company's improved productivity:

the employee, the government, the shareholders, the customers,

 society at large, and — last but not least — the company's own

 future. 

In 1984, while almost everyone treated profit as a two-way fight between capital

 and labour, I had already written customers, society and the unborn next

 generation into the distribution.

Here is the part that made me smile. The academic founding text of

 "stakeholder theory" — R. Edward Freeman's Strategic Management: A

 Stakeholder Approach — was also published in 1984. 

And it took the largest CEOs in America until,

  the Business Roundtable's 2019 restatement ,

to formally declare that a corporation exists for customers, employees,

 suppliers,  communities — and only then shareholders

 

 My personnel-conference handout  and the discipline's cornerstone were born

 in the same year, an ocean apart.

 

III.The vicious circle — and the link that quietly broke

I drew a loop in 1984 : 

higher wages drive higher costs, higher costs drive higher  prices, higher prices

erode purchasing power, and eroded purchasing power  triggers fresh wage

demands. 

 

The only escape, I argued, was to increase total  wealth ,

 — and then ensure that labour received a fair share of it, not merely a

bargained one.

The assumption underneath that argument was that the link between

 productivity and pay could be engineered. The historical record says something

 colder  :   the link broke. 

The Economic Policy Institute's data shows that since 1979 ,

productivity has grown roughly 2.7 times faster than the pay of a typical

 worker. 

The wealth I hoped to grow and share did grow — and then flowed past

 the worker to capital. My diagnosis was a validation and a warning in the same

 breath.

Claude's reading — the critique that aged into proof

The note's weakest move is also, in hindsight, its most prophetic. It assigns 66% of input weight to Material and only 20% to Manpower, then credits the whole productivity gain to "men," on the reasoning that all inputs are managed by people.

That always strained. And independent economists now confirm the strain: roughly 40% of measured productivity growth since 1979 came from "capital deepening" — workers simply having better machines — not from worker effort at all. The 1984 note worried, in its own vocabulary, that you cannot cleanly hand the credit for a productivity gain to labour. Four decades of data agree.

One honest caveat, which I add in my own voice :

 

-   the productivity–pay gap is contested. 

Critics argue the comparison mixes different price deflators, and that

 the shift off the gold standard in 1971 distorts any long-run wage series. I note

 the dispute and let the reader weigh it. The trend is real; its precise size and

 cause remain a live argument.

IV.The problem did not shrink. It metastasised.

In 1984 I fretted that only 1 job in 10 had a measurable output, and that as you

 climbed from workman to officer to manager, productivity dissolved into

"difficult-to-quantify" things — initiative, creativity, team-building, leadership.

 I treated that as an awkward exception at the top of the ladder.

In a knowledge-and-AI economy, that exception is the workforce. The

 fraction of work whose output attributes cleanly to one identifiable person is

smaller today than my "1 in 10," not larger. 

Every tool we built to measure has  made the measurable share of human

 contribution thinner

 The "unsolved  issue" of my title was, it turns out, not merely unsolved.

 It was structurally unsolvable by measurement ,

  — which is precisely why every real-world scheme.

 I surveyed in 1984 (AMCO, ITC, Bhilai, the public-sector 10% ceiling) was,

 underneath the formula, a negotiated political settlement wearing the

 costume of a productivity equation. That is still true in 2026.

What the 1984 note argued	How it reads in 2026
Measuring contributionOf 10,000 employees, barely 1,000 had measurable output; the rest could not be assessed.	The problem grewIn a knowledge-and-AI economy the unmeasurable share is larger, not smaller. Measurement did not catch up — it fell behind.
Who earns the gainMaterial was 66% of input, Manpower 20% — yet the entire productivity gain was credited to "men."	Independent confirmationEPI finds ~40% of post-1979 productivity growth came from better equipment ("capital deepening"), not worker effort.
Claimants to profitSix claimants: employee, government, shareholders, customers, society, and the company's future.	Stakeholder capitalismFreeman's stakeholder theory (1984) and the Business Roundtable's 2019 restatement say the same in different words.
The fair shareBreak the wage-price spiral by growing total wealth — then give labour a fair, not merely bargained, share.	The link brokeProductivity has outgrown typical pay ~2.7x since 1979. The connection I hoped to engineer quietly came apart.

I wrote in 1984 that the head of the joint family "very often breaks

 down." I did not yet know that the family I was really describing was

 the whole economy — and that the contradiction between measuring a

 man's worth and paying him for it would outlive me, my company,

 and very nearly my century. This note is where my decades of writing

 on pay ratios and inequality truly begin. I simply did not have the

 word for it then. Claude does: unsolvable by measurement. So we

 are left, as we were in 1984, with the harder instrument — judgement,

 and a sense of justice.

Sources & further reading

Economic Policy Institute — The Productivity–Pay Gap

Business Roundtable — Corporate Purpose and Profit, Five Years On (the 2019 stakeholder statement)

R. Edward Freeman, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (1984).

H. C. Parekh, "Stray Thoughts on Prosperity Sharing — An Unsolved Issue," Third All-India Personnel Conference, October 1984.