Yesterday was supposed to be my last day as Deputy Director of INSPEM according to the previous appointment. I had emptied the filing cabinets, bringing home papers and what's left are just things that are visible outside and those on and in my desk. However by noon, got the reappointment letter as Deputy Director and hence the other letter before it, applies i.e. will take up the duties of the Director until a new Director is appointed after the restructuring. As much as I wanted to leave, I have to put aside my personal wishes and problems and take up the role of a caretaker until the restructuring is settled. This is for the benefit of INSPEM. Earlier, I had wanted to focus more on science particularly graduating my students. This may now need adjustment. Given that I have only about three years of services left, hope to give a new push for theoretical physics with new plans. In the past, I had to put my theoretical physics interest to the background, so as not to give the impression I'm pursuing self-interest above the institute. In addition, I was at the service of previous directors and some theoretical physics proposals did get shot down by others as we are in the minority. Now if it seems that I'm pursuing my interest more, I hope people will understand it in the context that I have not much time left to do this anymore. I do not expect anyone else to fight for theoretical physics for us; we have to do it ourselves.
With the reappointment, I hope all of us in INSPEM will still be able to work together and support each other. My own idea of the institute is that we are servicing the researchers as well as providing opportunities and creating a conducive environment for research in mathematical sciences. Despite some criticisms thrown at us, we are not here to defend the status quo but in fact we want to go beyond it and do new things. I believe if we are judged fairly, some of the things we do in the past (so-called INSPEM 1.0) are indeed so. For the so-called new phase of INSPEM 2.0, we are indeed required by the university to have niche areas though personally I would not be too strict on this. If we ever had acquired wisdom from the scientific past, we know that many progress in science are interrelated and some are unpredictable. Identifying niche area should not stifle creativity but instead promote it. I know that by pursuing certain niche areas, we will risk losing members and researchers but I suggest we take stock of those presently who wants to contribute to the institute and build from there.
Another personal view is that I see pursuing the Ministry's HiCoE direction is only a short term goal and thus my earlier comment of not being too strict about it. Despite the advantage of obtaining more financial support from being a HiCoE, there is a longer term goal of being internationally reputable. This is enshrined in our own institute's vision and also that of the university. Our past activities have done this to a certain extent and we should build on this in a much more serious manner. The idea is to forge more longer sustainable and reciprocating international research collaborations beyond individual collaboration. We had already MICEMS at our doorsteps (actually we had a few more before) and personally I would like to keep this active. Individually one can only do so much but as an organization, we should be doing better. Presently at a more individual level, I have already a few international (and national) invitations and in the process of building others. But I will leave in a few more years and thus if these international relations are not pursued at the organization level, they may just end when I leave.
I think I have said enough. let me just sum up with these: build traditions and this will outlast any change of leadership, our ambitions and ourselves.
