The Curious Case of Orion: When a Chinese Robodog Went Viral for the Wrong Reasons

The world of Artificial Intelligence is moving faster than most of us can keep up with. Every day, there is a new breakthrough, a smarter chatbot, or a more agile robot. However, at the recent India AI Impact Summit 2026 held at Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi, the spotlight shifted from technological advancement to a full-blown controversy involving a private Indian university and a four-legged robotic dog.

​What was meant to be a showcase of indigenous innovation quickly turned into a social media firestorm. Galgotias University, based in Greater Noida, found itself at the center of a national debate after presenting a robotic dog named "Orion" as a product developed by their own Centre of Excellence. Within hours, eagle-eyed tech enthusiasts and netizens identified the robot not as a homegrown miracle, but as a commercially available product from China.

​

The Spark That Set Social Media Ablaze

​The controversy began when a video from the summit went viral. In the clip, Professor Neha Singh, representing Galgotias University, was seen introducing the sleek, metallic quadruped to the media. She described the robot, which they had nicknamed "Orion," as a product developed by the university’s Centre of Excellence. She even linked it to a massive Rs 350 crore investment the university had allegedly made in AI research.

​To many viewers, the message seemed clear: this was a feat of Indian engineering. The professor spoke about the robot’s ability to perform tasks like surveillance and monitoring, highlighting its "naughty" personality and agile movements. For a moment, it looked like a proud win for the "Make in India" initiative in the high-tech sector.

​However, the internet is rarely fooled for long. Tech experts and robotics fans quickly noticed that "Orion" looked identical to the Unitree Go2, a popular robotic dog manufactured by the Chinese firm Unitree Robotics. The Unitree Go2 is a well-known model globally, often used by researchers and hobbyists, and can be purchased online for roughly $1,600 to $2,800.

​The Backlash and Global Embarrassment

​Once the connection to the Chinese robot was made, the backlash was swift and severe. Social media users accused the university of "rebranding" an imported product and passing it off as their own invention. The timing could not have been worse. The summit was a flagship event intended to showcase India’s growing prowess in AI to the world. Having a Chinese-made robot presented as a local innovation at such a high-profile venue was seen by many as a major embarrassment for the country.

​The situation escalated when political parties and public figures joined the fray. Critics argued that such incidents damage the credibility of genuine Indian researchers who are working hard to build original technology. It didn’t help that the university had a prominent stall at an event where the government was emphasizing domestic development and self-reliance.

​The University’s Defense and Clarification

​As the pressure mounted, Galgotias University issued a statement to clear the air. They denied that they had ever officially claimed to have "manufactured" the robot from scratch. According to the university, the robodog was purchased from Unitree to be used as a learning tool for their students. They called it a "classroom in motion," explaining that having access to such advanced global technology helps students understand robotics and AI programming better.

​The university administration described the backlash as a "propaganda campaign" and expressed concern that the negativity would hurt the morale of their students. They argued that "innovation knows no borders" and that using global tools to teach the next generation of engineers is a standard practice in education.

​However, social media users were not satisfied. An "X Community Note" was even added to the university’s clarification, pointing out that the viral video clearly showed a staff member claiming the robot was "developed" by the university. The debate then shifted to a game of semantics—what does "developed" actually mean? Does it mean building the hardware, or just programming the software on top of an existing platform?

​Eviction from the AI Summit

​The controversy eventually reached the ears of the summit organizers and government officials. To maintain the integrity of the event, the authorities took a firm stand. Galgotias University was asked to vacate its stall at the expo immediately.

​Reports from the venue described a somewhat chaotic scene as the university staff began packing up their exhibits. According to some sources, the power to their section of the pavilion was cut off shortly after they were told to leave. It was a stark and public exit for an institution that, just a day earlier, had been the talk of the town for its "innovative" display.

​The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) officials noted that while they encourage student engagement with technology, they cannot tolerate exhibits that might mislead the public or international observers about the origins of the technology on display.

​Lessons for the Academic World

​This incident serves as a cautionary tale for educational institutions everywhere. In the race to look "high-tech" and "future-ready," there is a thin line between showcasing a learning tool and claiming an invention.

• ​Transparency is Key: If a university uses imported hardware for research, they should clearly state that from the beginning. There is no shame in using a world-class Chinese or American robot to teach students; the shame only comes when the origin is hidden or misrepresented.

• ​The Power of Fact-Checking: We live in an age where information is at everyone's fingertips. A quick reverse image search or a look at a product’s design can reveal the truth in seconds. Trying to "pass off" technology in the digital age is a high-risk gamble that rarely pays off.

• ​Defining "Development": In the tech world, "developing" can mean many things. You can develop software for a robot you didn't build. However, in a public exhibition, it is vital to be specific. If you only programmed the robot, say that. If you built the legs but bought the brain, say that too.

​Moving Forward

​Despite the embarrassment, the core mission of using advanced tools for education remains important. India has a massive pool of talent in engineering and AI. To truly compete on a global stage, the focus needs to remain on genuine research, original patents, and honest representation.

​The "Orion" incident will likely be remembered as a meme for a while, but it also opens up a larger conversation about the ethics of technology sharing and the pressure universities feel to appear "innovative" at any cost. Hopefully, the next time we see a robotic dog at an Indian AI summit, it will be one that was designed, engineered, and manufactured right here at home.

​The students at Galgotias and other universities are undoubtedly capable of great things. To help them succeed, the institutions must lead with integrity, showing that the path to real innovation is built on hard work and honesty, not just a new name tag on an imported machine.