The recent events at the India AI Impact Summit have sparked a nationwide conversation that goes far beyond a single institution. Galgotias University faced intense public scrutiny after showcasing a robotic dog named Orion that a University representative claimed was made at the institution. However, observers quickly identified the machine not as a homegrown marvel of artificial intelligence, but as a Unitree Go2, a commercially available quadruped robot from China that retails for around Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 3 lakh.
As the backlash mounted, the university issued a statement to clarify their stance. They stated that Galgotias has not built this robodog, neither have they claimed to do so, eventually stating the representative was “ill-informed”. They explained it was procured as a learning tool for students. However, the optics of presenting an imported product at a national summit meant to celebrate domestic artificial intelligence innovation struck a nerve.
While it is tempting to focus the criticism entirely on one university, doing so misses the broader, more uncomfortable truth. The Orion debacle is merely a symptom of a deep-seated malaise that permeates multiple sectors across the country. There is a pervasive culture that prioritizes imitation and packaging over genuine, ground-up innovation.
Consider the booming consumer electronics and accessories market. Several highly celebrated domestic brands, often hailed as entrepreneurial triumphs, have built massive empires not through innovative engineering, but through astute marketing. The reality behind many popular headphones, smartwatches, and backpacks is that they are imported and white-labeled Chinese goods. These companies are brilliant at distribution and brand building, yet they contribute very little to actual technological advancement or original product design. They find a working model overseas, brand it locally, and sell it to a massive, aspirational consumer base.
This tendency to borrow heavily from established global successes is also visible in the automotive sector. The Mahindra Thar is currently one of the most desired and best-selling SUVs in the domestic market. However, its design language borrows heavily from the original Jeep Wrangler. This striking visual similarity is not just a matter of subjective opinion. Stellantis, the parent company of Jeep, took legal action in international courts over this exact issue. As a result of these copyright and design infringement battles, the current iteration of the Thar has effectively been blocked from launching in markets like Australia, while the Roxor has been banned in the United States for similar issues. When a flagship domestic vehicle faces such severe international barriers due to its lack of design originality, it serves as a stark reminder of our reliance on established global templates.
The entertainment industry provides perhaps the most historically visible examples of this phenomenon. For decades, the music industry has thrived on borrowed genius. Legendary music directors from RD Burman and Bappi Lahiri to modern maestros like Anu Malik and Pritam Chakraborty have faced well-documented accusations of plagiarizing tunes from international artists. Countless chart-topping hits are direct copies of obscure foreign tracks, repackaged for local sensibilities. The film industry operates similarly, with numerous blockbuster movies lifting specific scenes or entire plotlines from Hollywood or European cinema without securing official rights or offering credit.
Even the modern digital landscape, which promises a new frontier of Indian ingenuity, often falls into the same trap. A vast majority of successful domestic smartphone applications are straightforward copycats of Western apps, tailored slightly for local logistics or payment gateways. In the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence, many heavily promoted local Large Language Models are essentially just localized instances of existing open-source models like DeepSeek. Similarly, in software development, local Linux distributions are frequently nothing more than minor cosmetic modifications to deeply established global operating systems.
The core issue is that genuine innovation is inherently risky, time-consuming, and expensive. It requires an ecosystem that tolerates failure and invests heavily in foundational research and development. Currently, our environment overly rewards the quick adaptation of proven external models. We celebrate the successful localization of a product more than the difficult journey of creating something entirely new.
The incident at the artificial intelligence summit should serve as a crucial mirror for the entire nation. If we are to become a true global powerhouse in technology, design, and culture, we must transition from being skilled imitators to original creators. We must foster academic and corporate environments where building a complex robotic system from scratch is valued higher than purchasing one for display. Until we collectively commit to the grueling work of true innovation, we will continue to find ourselves defending borrowed melodies, white-labeled hardware, and imported robotic dogs. Imitation might be the sincerest form of flattery, but we must be careful, lest we flatter to deceive.
