When a four-legged robot named Orion trotted onto the floor of the India AI Impact Summit, it was meant to showcase cutting-edge innovation in Greater Noida. Instead, within hours, it sparked a firestorm that forced Galgotias University to vacate its stall and issue a public apology — with social media users identifying the machine as being made in China.
From ‘Orion’ to Unitree: How the controversy erupted
The row started when Professor Neha Singh, who was representing the university at the summit, introduced a robot dog called Orion during a media interaction. In a video broadcast by DD News, she said the robot “was developed by the Galgotias University Center of Excellence” and described its monitoring and surveillance capabilities.
However, online users were quick to point out that the robot looked exactly like the Unitree Go2, a commercially available four-legged robot made by Unitree Robotics. The model is widely used in research and education across the globe and is priced around Rs 2-3 lakh in India.Ridicule and political criticism quickly followed. Critics claim that an imported Chinese product was presented as an in-house innovation at a summit aimed at highlighting domestic artificial intelligence capabilities.As scrutiny intensified, sources said authorities asked the university to vacate the stalls. According to reports, the power to the pavilion was cut off before the team could clear the site.The Ministry of Electronics and Information made its position clear. Secretary of State Krishnan said the government wanted the expo to reflect “real, practical work” and “cannot encourage misinformation”. He stopped short of making direct accusations, but added that organizers did not want controversy surrounding the exhibition and that a code of conduct was crucial.Additional secretary Abhishek Singh said the intention was not to stifle innovation but that the presentation should not be misleading and the incident should not overshadow the efforts of other players.
Damage Control and Diversion Explained
Faced with growing opposition, the university’s response has evolved over time.In an initial statement, the company insisted it did not claim to have built the robot and that exposure to global technology was central to student learning. It described the criticism as a “propaganda campaign” and said robot programming was part of its efforts to help students develop real-world artificial intelligence skills using tools available globally.Registrar Nitin Kumar Gaur later sought to clear up what he called a “confusion” between the words “development” and “development”. Speaking to ANI, he said the university did not develop the robot but was “working on its development” for academic and research purposes. He said the machine was purchased to support student research.Professor Singh also issued a clarification, saying there was a “misunderstanding” and that the university never claimed that the robot was manufactured by the school. She acknowledged that she may not have expressed her views clearly during the interaction.By evening, the tone took a decisive turn. In a formal apology, the university said the museum’s representative had “little knowledge” of the product’s technical origins and, despite not being authorized to speak to the media, provided “factually incorrect information” in her enthusiasm on camera.The statement insisted there was “no institutional intention to misrepresent this innovation” and said the university had vacated the site in accordance with the organizers’ wishes.Meanwhile, opposition leaders seized on the incident. Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi described the summit as “a disjointed PR extravaganza” and questioned why Chinese products were being showcased at an event meant to showcase India’s artificial intelligence ambitions.
