AI Summit Shame: Galgotias Row Exposes Systemic Rot

Spread love

As global leaders gather at Bharat Mandapam for the AI Impact Summit, a China-made robot dog controversy raises tough questions about India’s education system and Make in India claims

By TRH Op-Ed Desk

New Delhi, February 18, 2026 — At a moment when India is hosting world leaders, CEOs and diplomats at the AI Impact Summit in Bharat Mandapam, an unexpected controversy hijacked headlines: the Galgotias University robot dog controversy.

In a sharply worded monologue on The Raisina Hills, senior journalist Manish Anand argues that the episode is not merely about one university allegedly showcasing a China-made robotic dog as innovation — it reflects a deeper structural malaise in India’s education and administrative ecosystem.

“This is not about one robot dog,” said Anand. “It is about a hollow education system and an ecosystem that promotes projection over genuine innovation.”

Summit Optics vs Ground Reality

The AI Impact Summit was meant to showcase India as a rising AI powerhouse. Presidents, prime ministers, global tech CEOs and startup founders were in attendance. Yet, international media coverage reportedly spotlighted the controversy instead of innovation breakthroughs.

According to social media reactions, the robotic dog displayed at the pavilion was identified as a product of a Chinese company — not an indigenous creation.

In the age of instant verification, claims of innovation are quickly scrutinized.

The Bigger Question: Why Import What We Can Build?

India’s bilateral trade deficit with China exceeds $100 billion annually. Despite Make in India initiatives, critics argue that imported goods are often relabeled and presented as domestic innovation.

Anand raises a pointed question: “Why couldn’t such a simple robotic dog be developed in Hyderabad or Bengaluru? Do we lack talent — or do we lack the ecosystem?”

He suggests the latter.

Education as Marketplace?

The controversy has triggered broader concerns about the commercialization of private universities. Large institutions with multi-crore turnover projections position themselves as innovation hubs, yet incidents like this cast doubt on academic rigor.

“Degrees are being sold, not innovation nurtured,” Anand argues.

The China Comparison

In the 1990s, China reportedly introduced aggressive policies to reverse brain drain — offering returning scientists better pay, lab infrastructure and full state support.

Today, companies like ByteDance dominate global digital platforms, including TikTok, while Chinese AI and robotics manufacturing challenge US supremacy.

China’s state-backed ecosystem, Anand says, prioritized execution — not just policy paperwork. “Policy on paper is not power. Execution is power,” he says.

Policy vs Implementation

India, critics argue, excels at drafting ambitious policies. But implementation gaps — bureaucratic hurdles, funding bottlenecks, and ecosystem fragmentation — limit tangible outcomes.

“If a 20-year-experienced Indian engineer returns from the US with a proposal,” Anand notes, “the first question asked is how much he will invest — not how the system will support him.”

That difference, he argues, explains divergent outcomes.

National Image at Stake

The AI Impact Summit was meant to project India as a credible AI player alongside the US and China. Instead, the robot dog episode became symbolic of a credibility gap.

The concern is not one event. It is whether India is building genuine technological capacity — or merely curating optics.

Unless talent is empowered with infrastructure, regulatory clarity and institutional honesty, Anand warns, similar embarrassments may recur.

(This is an opinion piece. Views expressed are those of Manish Anand.)