The recent controversy at the India AI Impact Summit 2026 involving Galgotias University has become a stark symbol of the disconnect between India’s ambitious AI rhetoric and the harsh realities of execution on the ground.
What started as a seemingly confident showcase at a high-profile national event, inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and focused on projecting India’s rise as a sovereign AI power quickly devolved into widespread ridicule, intense scrutiny, and swift institutional repercussions.
At the heart of the matter was a robotic dog displayed prominently at Galgotias University’s expo stall in Bharat Mandapam, New Delhi. Branded as “Orion” (Operational Robotic Intelligence Node in some university references), it was positioned as a flagship element of the institution’s touted ₹350+ crore investment in an advanced AI ecosystem, including a dedicated Centre of Excellence for research, student training, and innovation in emerging technologies.
In viral videos and media interactions, including one with Doordarshan (DD News), a faculty member, Professor Neha Singh from the communications department enthusiastically described the robot, “This has been developed by the Centre of Excellence at Galgotias University.”
The wording, delivered in the context of a summit emphasizing “Atmanirbhar Bharat” and indigenous AI capabilities, created a clear impression of original development or substantial in-house advancement.
Online sleuths and tech observers dismantled the claim in minutes. “Orion” was quickly identified as a standard Unitree Go2, an off-the-shelf quadruped robot from China’s Unitree Robotics.
Available for purchase online at around $2,800 (₹2-3 lakh in India), the Go2 offers impressive out-of-the-box features like agile mobility, AI navigation, object detection, and modular add-ons—impressive for education and demos, but requiring no groundbreaking R&D beyond basic setup.
Photos from the stall even showed lingering Unitree markings, yet the university had rebranded it and tied it to their massive claimed investments, amplifying the perception of misrepresentation.
The backlash exploded across social media platforms like X, with users calling it deceptive, embarrassing, and symptomatic of deeper issues in India’s tech education and innovation ecosystem.
Comments flooded in labeling it a “national embarrassment,” accusing the university of chasing cheap optics amid government narratives of self-reliance. Many highlighted the irony: India, positioning itself to challenge China in AI and robotics, was reduced to importing a mid-range Chinese product, slapping on a new name, and presenting it at a premier event as homegrown progress.
Critics argued it exposed a culture of “jugaad” shortcuts, where flashy imports substitute for real R&D, eroding credibility when India pitches itself globally as an AI contender. Diaspora voices and international tech circles noted how such incidents damage perceptions at a time when India seeks partnerships and investments.
Galgotias University’s clarification arrived rapidly but felt inadequate to many observers. In an official statement shared on X and with media outlets, they asserted: “Let us be clear — Galgotias has not built this robodog, neither have we claimed [to have built it]. But what we are building are minds that will soon design, engineer, and manufacture such technologies right here in Bharat.”
They framed the Unitree Go2 as a “learning tool” and “classroom in motion,” procured deliberately from global sources (including China and the US) to give students hands-on exposure to state-of-the-art tech.
Registrar Nitin Kumar Gaur told the media that any confusion stemmed from loose wording around “develop” versus “developed,” suggesting a misunderstanding rather than intent to deceive.
Later comments emphasized that the focus was on inspiring future creators, not claiming manufacturing credit, and denied receiving any formal vacate order initially.This defense, while factually narrow (they may not have explicitly said “we manufactured it from scratch”), failed to address the core issue: the on-site presentation strongly implied indigenous innovation, especially at a summit tied to national pride.
The viral clip of Professor Neha Singh’s introduction, combined with tying it to the Centre of Excellence and massive funding claims, crossed into misleading territory. Accusations of a “propaganda campaign” against the university in follow-up statements came across as defensive rather than accountable.
Faculty members insisted things “may not have been expressed clearly,” but the optics of retraction after exposure resembled damage control more than transparency.
The consequences escalated quickly. Government sources from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), which organizes such events, confirmed that Galgotias was directed to vacate their stall immediately on February 18, 2026.
Reports described power being cut to the pavilion, media crowding the booth with unanswered questions, and staff/students packing up amid the uproar. While university representatives claimed no official notice had arrived, videos and eyewitness accounts showed the exhibit being dismantled.
This decisive action underscored that, even for private institutions, national events demand alignment with integrity when symbolic weight is involved.
This episode transcends one university’s error, it’s a microcosm of systemic challenges in India’s AI and robotics journey. Private colleges face intense pressure to project “innovation” for student recruitment, rankings, and partnerships, often leading to overpromising.
Government programs like the IndiaAI Mission promote self-reliance, yet hardware dependencies persist: critical components like actuators, sensors, and platforms largely come from China, the US, or Taiwan. Genuine embodied AI progress demands heavy, sustained investment in R&D, talent ecosystems, supply chains, and policy frameworks—areas where India trails China’s manufacturing scale and the US’s software dominance.
Flashy exhibits are inexpensive and attention-grabbing; true breakthroughs require patience, iteration, and unglamorous work. If Galgotias’ ₹350 crore investment is real, it should fuel custom algorithms for Indian contexts, ethical frameworks, or localized applications—not just rebranded imports for demos.
When shortcuts prevail, they undermine trust in the broader “Atmanirbhar” story.In conclusion, India must now invest far more aggressively and strategically in AI to challenge global competitors.
This demands scaling public-private R&D collaborations, expanding PLI-like incentives for domestic hardware (semiconductors, robotics components), establishing world-class labs, improving talent retention through competitive pay and research freedom, and prioritizing honest, substance-driven showcases over hype.
Events like the India AI Impact Summit should spotlight verifiable achievements, open-source contributions, startup breakthroughs, high-impact papers not imported props dressed for virality.
The competitors aren’t pausing: China dominates robotics production with integrated supply chains, while the US leverages massive venture capital and foundational models. India has talent, scale, and ambition, but without depth over display, embarrassing episodes will persist, chipping away at credibility.
This painful moment could serve as a catalyst: redirect resources toward foundational research, skill massive cohorts in advanced robotics and AI, and build ecosystems where “Made in India” signifies engineered sovereignty, not assembly or rebranding.
Only through relentless, honest investment can India shift from importer to innovator, transforming today’s cringe into tomorrow’s competitive strength. The wake-up call has sounded, now it’s time to answer with action.
Naorem Mohen is the Editor of Signpost News. Explore his views and opinion on X: @laimacha.
Naorem Mohen
View More PostsNaorem Mohen is the Editor of Signpost News. Explore his views and opinion on X: @laimacha.
