Badhai ho, thoda sa national level pe embarrassment hua hai…
Appearing across New Delhi’s Bharat Mandapam grounds, the 2026 India AI Impact Summit aimed to highlight national aspirations within artificial intelligence. Backed by state support and framed as a leading initiative, it gathered academic institutions alongside startup teams while drawing international figures focused on machine learning policy. Though structured formally, its presence carried intense prominence among regulatory circles and ooof… global attention arrived through participation and how.
But oh oh… one display at the event, an artificial canine shown by Galgotias University drew sharp public reaction across the country. Starting as a simple demonstration, it soon raised doubts about authenticity, local invention, government image, and trust on a national scale. Take a peep into why this multilegged robot soon transformed into a multifaceted controversy.
Meet The Orion Robot, Who Made It, REALLY?
From the stage, Galgotias University introduced a four-legged robot shaped like a dog, called “Orion.” Earlier, on DD News’ coverage of an event, attention turned to Professor Neha Singh speaking about where the university directs its resources, specifically into work involving machine-based learning.
She stated, “We are the first private university investing more than 350 crore rupees in artificial intelligence and we have a dedicated data science and artificial intelligence block on the campus. So Orion has been developed by the Center of Excellences and as you can see, it can take all shapes and sizes.”
Describing the robot’s functions, she added that, “It’s quite naughty also. It’s quite naughty also and it can perform small tasks of surveillance, monitoring.”
It was the wording, specifically, the claim that “Orion has been developed by the Center of Excellences,” which translated how audiences saw the project. It was like people saw that and thought, “Nah, not buying that.”
Because of this formulation, observers assumed the machine originated within the university itself. Though not explicitly stated, the implication ran deep that internal creation is certain, right?
The Robot Identified As Unitree Go2
Shortly following its appearance on the web, analysts linked the machine to the Unitree Go2. Yes, this four-legged device comes from Unitree Robotics, a firm based in China and its model is accessible for purchase.
So now, we finally have a robot controversy in India that may be even more popular at the moment than the “Chitti chitti robo, chitti chitti robo, har dil ka tu pyaara, dil koi bhiiii ho.”
Beginning life in global markets, the Unitree Go2 reaches Indian consumers with a cost near ₹2-3 lakh, varying by setup and wait…far from being a closed experimental model, this robot exists as a ready-made tool found worldwide within academic and hands-on testing environments.
Questions arose (more than in a single episode of KBC) when it became clear a device labeled as homegrown had origins in a mass-market Chinese product. What appeared to be academic advancement at a state-level artificial intelligence gathering instead pointed toward external sourcing and this mismatch drew attention due to the event’s focus on locally driven breakthroughs. A gap could be seen between presentation and provenance, triggering scrutiny over claims of original development.
Tension Rises; Rahul Gandhi Joins Criticism
With attention growing, word arrived that Galgotias University was directed to leave its exhibit space at the AI Summit Expo. According to government accounts quoted by major news outlets, the machine showcased was confirmed as a consumer-grade device imported from China, not a locally developed creation and despite expectations of homegrown technology, officials emphasized compliance with exhibition guidelines required accurate representation of origin.
Unexpectedly, news emerged about electricity being disconnected at the university’s pavilion following its removal from the expo grounds. But now what the attendees wanna see at the Summit is not the policy matters, but the dispute.
Despite its intent, the event’s impact faded under the weight of an unforeseen disruption. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi also weighed in. In a post on X, he described the summit as a “disorganised PR spectacle.” He wrote, “Instead of leveraging India’s talent and data, the AI summit is a disorganised PR spectacle – Indian data up for sale, Chinese products showcased.”
Galgotias University Clarifies, Says….
Following criticism, several official messages came from Galgotias University to explain its stance. But till then the audience took a “Taqleef hua hai, bolne de bechare ko..” stance, and were in no condition to actually understand their position.
Following initial remarks, the institution clarified it did not create nor assert creation of the mechanical canine and exposure to cutting-edge international innovations for learners was cited as the reason behind the exhibit.
The university stated, “Let us be clear, Galgotias has not built this robodog, neither have we claimed. But what we are building are minds that will soon design, engineer, and manufacture such technologies right here in Bharat.”
It further added, “Innovation knows no borders. Learning should not either. We will continue to source the best technologies from across the world so our students can study them, challenge them, improve upon them and ultimately create world-class solutions from India for the world.”
In a later statement, the university said concerns about “propaganda” against it were misplaced. It stated, “We at Galgotias, faculty and students, are deeply pained by the propaganda campaign against our university. We would like to clearly state that the robotic programming is part of our endeavour to make students learn AI programming and develop & deploy real world skills using globally available tools and resources, given developing AI talent is need of an hour.”
The institution insisted its purpose centered on learning, not distortion of meaning. While presented visually, the intent stayed rooted in instruction instead of misleading interpretation.
Professor Neha Singh Responds
Addressing the matter, Professor Neha Singh pointed to misunderstandings in messaging, not in purpose.
She stated, “The controversy happened because things may not have been expressed clearly. I take accountability that perhaps I did not communicate it properly, as it was done with a lot of energy and enthusiasm and very quickly, so I may not have come across as eloquently as I usually do.”
Clarifying the core issue, she added, “One important point is regarding the robot dog, we cannot claim that we manufactured it. I have told everyone that we introduced it to our students to inspire them to create something better on their own.”
She further stated, “Our university contributes to building future leaders by providing cutting-edge technologies in the field of AI, and it will continue to do so.”
So, what does this mean for India now?
Questions about openness have emerged alongside concerns over who is represented at state-supported tech forums. Imported equipment often features in academic work, yet how such choices are explained create a difference greatly when officials lend their names to showcases. Despite routine reliance on foreign-made systems for study and instruction, moments of visibility demand clearer accounts.
What stands out is how delicate the position of Chinese tech remains in India, especially where digital systems and critical operations are involved. A peculiar kind of tension erupts when national interests come face-to-face with technological dependence.