At the India AI Impact Summit in Delhi, Galgotias University showcased a silver robotic dog called Orion. In a televised interaction, a university representative said the robot had been developed in house as part of a large investment in artificial intelligence and was designed for campus surveillance. The claim created the impression that it was a homegrown innovation.
Very soon, technology enthusiasts on social media identified the robot as the Unitree Go2, a commercially available product made by Unitree Robotics. The AI dog that was displayed as a prototype turned out to be a ₹2.5 lakh Chinese product available off the shelf. Observers also pointed out that the original manufacturer branding was still visible on the machine during the presentation.
As criticism grew, the university’s explanation changed. An apology was issued and the responsibility was placed on the professor, suggesting she had spoken out of enthusiasm without proper authorisation. Later, the position shifted to saying that the robot was only a learning tool purchased to help students understand programming, and that there was no intention to claim it was built by the university.
The fallout was significant. Reports said that summit organisers asked the university to vacate its stall, and the power supply to the pavilion was cut. A social media post by Union IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw highlighting the robot was later deleted.
The larger concern is not about one robotic device. It is about credibility. When a summit meant to showcase self reliance presents a mass produced foreign product as indigenous innovation, it affects trust. Institutions, especially educational ones, are expected to uphold accuracy and integrity.
This incident also revived discussion about the university’s political proximity. Its CEO, Dhruv Galgotia, has publicly supported the government’s Viksit Bharat vision. In 2024, students from the university had protested outside the Congress headquarters in Delhi, and some interviews from that protest went viral because students were unable to clearly explain the issues they were demonstrating about.
Imagine the state of our moral values when educational institutions are seen misleading the public. There is a clear difference between having a politically active campus and politicising a university. The first encourages debate and awareness. The second turns an academic space into an extension of political messaging. Unfortunately, it increasingly appears that the former is discouraged while the latter is quietly promoted.
India needs to reflect on what this says about us. We cannot keep creating events first and adjusting reality later. We cannot claim to be developed in spirit and conduct if we are only performing development on stage. Progress is not a presentation. It has to be real.
