NEW DELHI — At the India AI Impact Summit in Delhi, amid demonstrations of cutting-edge systems and ambitious declarations about India’s technological future, a four-legged robotic dog drew particular attention. Named “Orion,” the machine was presented during media interactions as part of a university’s showcase of innovation.
Within hours, clips of the demonstration began circulating online. Social media users alleged that the robotic dog was not indigenously developed but was in fact the Unitree Go2 — an AI-powered quadruped robot manufactured by the Chinese robotics company Unitree and sold commercially for an estimated ₹2–3 lakh.
The criticism centered not on the robot’s capabilities, but on representation. Several users accused Galgotias University, the Greater Noida-based institution behind the display, of presenting imported technology as homegrown innovation. Screenshots and video snippets fueled a rapidly expanding debate over whether the robot had been mischaracterized as a product of the university’s Centre of Excellence.
The episode unfolded at a moment when India’s technological ambitions are increasingly intertwined with questions of self-reliance, strategic autonomy and global competitiveness.
The University’s Clarification
Facing mounting criticism, Galgotias University issued a public statement on X (formerly Twitter). The university said the robodog had been “recently acquired” from Unitree and was being used as a learning platform for students. It maintained that it had never claimed to have built the machine.
“The recently acquired Robodog from Unitree is one such step in that journey,” the statement read. “It is not merely a machine on display; it is a classroom in motion… Let us be clear: Galgotias has not built this robodog, nor have we ever claimed to.”
The university framed the acquisition as part of a broader educational mission: exposing students to cutting-edge global technologies so they could experiment, test limits and develop their own capabilities. Innovation, the statement added, “knows no borders.”
In subsequent remarks, the institution emphasized that its objective was not to import technology for prestige but to inspire students to build world-class solutions in India.
Fact-Checks and Community Notes
The clarification did little to quiet the online debate.
An X Community Note appended to one of the viral posts challenged the university’s assertion that it had never implied authorship. The note stated that the robot had been named “Orion” and that during the summit presentation it had been described in a manner suggesting in-house development. The community note characterized the claim of non-attribution as “incorrect and misleading.”
Screenshots of the Community Note circulated alongside commentary accusing the university of misrepresentation. Some users went further, describing the incident as damaging to the country’s reputation at an international technology event.
The controversy illustrates how digital fact-checking mechanisms — once the domain of media organizations — are now embedded directly into social media platforms, where public claims are contested in real time. In this environment, institutional clarifications are immediately weighed against archived clips, user interpretations and collaborative annotations.
Innovation, Attribution and the Politics of “Made in India”
Beyond the immediate dispute lies a deeper tension: how institutions present technology in an era when supply chains are global and innovation is often iterative.
Universities worldwide routinely procure advanced hardware for research and training. Yet in India’s current policy climate — shaped by calls for indigenous development, “Atmanirbhar Bharat” initiatives and strategic competition with China — the symbolic weight of attribution carries heightened sensitivity.
At technology summits where global CEOs and policymakers speak of sovereign AI and domestic capability, even small ambiguities can provoke scrutiny. The line between showcasing a tool for educational purposes and implying proprietary innovation can blur in public presentations, particularly when branding and naming conventions are involved.
The Galgotias episode unfolded against the backdrop of a summit designed to project India’s leadership in artificial intelligence. Instead, it became a case study in how narratives of innovation are constructed, contested and corrected in the digital age.
As universities, startups and institutions race to align themselves with the promise of AI, the controversy underscores a parallel imperative: clarity. In an ecosystem increasingly shaped by viral video, platform fact-checks and geopolitical sensitivities, how technology is described may matter almost as much as what it can do.
For now, the robotic dog named Orion has become more than a demonstration device. It stands at the intersection of aspiration and accountability — a reminder that in the age of AI, reputation travels as quickly as code.
