'My heart goes to the students...': Harsh Goenka’s Galgotias swipe ignites debate on academic credibility

Industrialist Harsh Goenka has stirred a wider conversation about credibility, innovation and student identity after a pointed social media remark on the controversy involving Galgotias University drew strong reactions across academic and technology circles.  

Reacting to the university’s participation in a recent artificial intelligence showcase, Goenka referenced an earlier academic episode linked to the institution and expressed sympathy for its students.  

“Galgotias, now in the news for robots, is the same university whose faculty once published a paper suggesting that thali and bell vibrations could kill coronavirus. My heart goes to the students of this university who will feel ashamed to say where they are studying,” he wrote.  

The comment quickly gained traction online, but instead of remaining confined to criticism of a single institution, it evolved into a broader debate on how reputation, opportunity and accountability intersect in India’s rapidly expanding private education sector.  

Push back against stereotypes  

Many social media users defended students, arguing that individuals should not be judged solely by their college affiliation in an increasingly skills-driven economy.  

One widely shared response advised young engineers to focus on demonstrable ability rather than brand value: “Engineers — stop being embarrassed about your university. Make your name bigger than your college… In the long run; Skills > Paper Degree.”  

Others highlighted the socio-economic pressures shaping educational choices, noting that for many families — especially from agrarian or small-town backgrounds—private universities represent aspiration, not privilege.  

“Parents have put everything on stake… imagine their plight, landing a job in an already saturated market,” another user wrote, pointing to employability anxieties that go far beyond one controversy.  

‘Robot Dog’ controversy  

The debate was triggered by the university’s display of a robotic dog named Orion, presented as an in-house development of its Centre of Excellence at the ongoing India AI Impact Summit 2026. Online observers soon alleged that the machine closely resembled the commercially available quadruped robot produced by Unitree Robotics, prompting questions about whether the exhibit represented original work.  

The university later issued an apology, saying the person interacting with media at the pavilion was not authorised to speak on its behalf. It denied any deliberate attempt to misrepresent innovation and reiterated its commitment to “academic integrity, transparency and responsible representations.”  

According to the statement, the institution vacated the exhibition space after recognising the organisers’ concerns.  

Govt emphasises authenticity over optics  

Officials signalled that the controversy should serve as a reminder that public technology platforms must showcase genuine research rather than promotional claims.  

S Krishnan, Secretary at the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, underscored that exhibitions are intended to highlight “genuine and actual work.”  

“The idea is not to use this as an opportunity in any other fashion. We don’t want a controversy around exhibits which are presented here,” he said, adding that misinformation or plagiarism “cannot be encouraged.”  

Krishnan clarified that the government was not issuing a technical judgment on the robot itself, but was stressing the importance of credibility in publicly presented innovation.