What began as a routine product demonstration at Delhi’s AI Impact Summit has spiralled into a reputational flashpoint for Galgotias University, with a faculty member, Neha Singh, Communication Professor, Galgotias University, now caught at the heart of an escalating institutional controversy.
In a video interaction from the Expo floor, Singh is seen explaining a robotic dog to attending media, describing it as a product “developed” at the university’s Centre of Excellence. The brief, intended to spotlight academic innovation, soon travelled far beyond the Summit halls, triggering scrutiny, fact-checks and eventually, diplomatic discomfort.
Within hours, Chinese media reports and product trails surfaced online, claiming the same robo dog as a China-manufactured device merely exhibited at the Summit, not built in India. The narrative flipped overnight.
Institutional Distancing
On Wednesday, Galgotias University issued a public clarification distancing itself from Singh’s remarks, terming her “ill-informed” and “not authorised to speak on behalf of the institution”.
In an interaction with the media, Registrar Nitin Kumar Gaur attempted damage control, attributing the controversy to a semantic mix-up.
He said the confusion stemmed from the use of the words “develop” and “development”. According to Gaur, the university did not manufacture the robot but had worked on its development in an academic environment — using the device for student research, testing and experimentation.
He added that the robot had been procured to provide hands-on exposure.
Responding to allegations that the device was sourced from China, Gaur said it “could have been purchased from there” but maintained that he had received no formal communication directing the university to vacate the Expo premises.
Galgotias University was asked to vacate its exhibition space following the controversy, a claim that added another layer of embarrassment.
Professor’s Defence
Facing mounting backlash, Professor Neha Singh issued her own clarification in media interactions.
She stated that the university never projected the robot as its original invention or as an India-made product, emphasising that the device’s original branding remained visible throughout the display.
Singh explained that the robot had been brought for a specific academic assignment and was later shifted to a laboratory for research purposes. It was showcased at the Expo for two days as part of a demonstration that has since concluded.
Calling the episode a “misunderstanding”, she said the controversy escalated due to misinterpretation of her remarks.
She further underlined that she teaches communications — not artificial intelligence — suggesting her explanation may not have been technically framed.
Professor ‘Open To Work’ Now
The controversy took a more personal turn when media reports flagged that Singh had reportedly marked herself “open to work” on LinkedIn soon after the episode went viral.
While there is no official confirmation linking the update to institutional action, the timing fuelled speculation — with online discourse oscillating between sympathy and scepticism.
Some viewed it as reputational fallout.
Scapegoat vs Accountability
The university’s stance, particularly remarks suggesting Singh spoke “in excitement of being on camera” — has triggered a fresh debate on academic accountability.
On social media, critics questioned whether an individual professor was being positioned as an easy scapegoat in what appeared to be an institutional exhibition decision.
Supporters of the professor argued that product vetting, origin disclosure and display clearance fall under administrative oversight — not faculty briefings.
The incident has since snowballed into a case study on crisis communication within higher education institutions.
Security & Procurement Concerns
Beyond reputational optics, the episode has also raised deeper concerns.
If the robo dog was indeed a Chinese product, some questioned how it was cleared for display at a high-profile Indian AI Summit — an event positioned around national innovation, strategic technology and digital sovereignty.
What was meant to signal India’s academic AI readiness has instead opened fault lines, around attribution, academic communication, tech nationalism and institutional crisis management.
For Galgotias University, the immediate task remains reputational containment. For Professor Neha Singh, the episode has become career-defining overnight, placing her at the intersection of institutional protocol and public perception. |
