Claim, blame, warning, exit: How Galgotias University’s Chinese robodog row unfolded at AI Summit | India News
When a four-legged robot called “Orion” trotted the floor of the India AI Impact Summit, it was meant to showcase the latest innovations from Greater Noida. Instead, within hours, it sparked a storm that forced Galgotius University to vacate its stall and issue a public apology — after social media users identified the machine as a Chinese-made product.
‘Orion’ to Unity: How the Controversy Began
The row started when Professor Neha Singh, representing the university at the summit, introduced a robotic dog named “Orion” during a media interaction. In a clip aired by DD News, he said the robot was “developed by Galgotius University’s Center of Excellence” and described its surveillance and monitoring capabilities.However, online users are quick to point out that the robot looks identical to the Unitree Go2, a commercially available quadruped made by Unitree Robotics. The model is widely used in research and education worldwide and is available in India for around Rs 2-3 lakh.What followed was swift ridicule and political criticism. Critics complained that an imported Chinese product was presented as an internal innovation at a summit designed to spotlight domestic AI capabilities.As the scrutiny intensified, sources said the authorities have asked the university to vacate its stall. The power supply to the pavilion was reportedly cut off before the team could clear the premises.The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has clarified their position. Secretary S Krishnan said the government wants “true and genuine work” to be reflected in the expo and “misinformation cannot be encouraged”. Without making direct accusations, he added that the organizers did not want controversy surrounding the exhibition and that a code of conduct was essential.Additional Secretary Abhishek Singh said the aim is not to stifle innovation but that demonstrations should not be distracting and the phase should not overshadow the efforts of other participants.
Loss control and shifting interpretations
Faced with mounting backlash, the university’s response evolved during the day.In an initial statement, it maintained that it did not claim to have built the robot, arguing that exposure to global technology was central to student learning. It described the criticism as a “propaganda campaign” and said robotic programming was part of an effort to help students develop real-world AI skills using tools available worldwide.Registrar Nitin Kumar Gaur later sought to clarify what he called a “confusion” between the words “development” and “development”. Speaking to ANI, he said the university did not develop the robot but “worked on its development” for academic and research purposes. He said the machine was bought to help students in their research.Professor Singh also issued a clarification, saying there was a “misinterpretation” and that the university never claimed the robot made it. He admitted that he could not get his point across clearly in the flow of the interaction.By evening, the tone had changed decisively. In a formal apology, the university said the representative running the pavilion was “informed” about the product’s technical origins and “materially misrepresented” his enthusiasm on camera despite not being authorized to speak to reporters.The statement emphasized that “there was no institutional intent to misrepresent this invention” and said the university vacated the premises in keeping with the organizer’s sentiments.In the meantime, the leaders of the opposition parties have seized this episode. Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi described the summit as a “disorganized public relations spectacle”, questioning why Chinese products were being showcased at an event meant to project India’s AI ambitions.
