top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Robot Dog, Paper Tiger

The Galgotias University fiasco reveals how dishonest branding can make a mockery of India’s AI ambitions. Delhi India’s ambition to become a global artificial-intelligence (AI) power ought to rest on something far less glamorous than summits or shiny exhibits, namely basic credibility. That asset took a needless knock at the India AI Impact Summit in Delhi, where the Uttar Pradesh-based Galgotias University found itself embroiled in a contretemps that has roundly embarrassed the nation. The...

Robot Dog, Paper Tiger

The Galgotias University fiasco reveals how dishonest branding can make a mockery of India’s AI ambitions. Delhi India’s ambition to become a global artificial-intelligence (AI) power ought to rest on something far less glamorous than summits or shiny exhibits, namely basic credibility. That asset took a needless knock at the India AI Impact Summit in Delhi, where the Uttar Pradesh-based Galgotias University found itself embroiled in a contretemps that has roundly embarrassed the nation. The object at the centre of the controversy was a robotic dog named ORION (short for Operational Robotic Intelligence Node). According to the university’s own promotional material, the robotic dog was the star attraction at its pavilion and interacted live with delegates and demonstrated applied robotics and intelligent systems integration. Visitors assumed it was a product of the institution’s AI-driven Centres of Excellence, itself promoted as part of a Rs. 350-crore push into advanced technology. However, it turned out that the robot was a commercially available Unitree Go2, manufactured in China and sold online for a few lakh rupees. Worse, reports suggested that the original manufacturer’s branding was still visible on the device, leading to a raft of accusations that imported hardware was being passed off as indigenous innovation. Faced with an online backlash, the university insisted it had never claimed to have built the robot. However, this proved difficult for the varsity to disown once scrutiny began. To make matters worse, videos of the robotic dog were amplified by government social-media handles, lending the display an air of state-sanctioned achievement. It suggested that India’s AI push was already yielding sophisticated, home-grown hardware. Within a day of the controversy, Galgotias University was reportedly asked to vacate its stall at the AI Expo. This embarrassment was eminently avoidable. Indian universities routinely rely on foreign platforms as teaching aids, just as their peers elsewhere do. American engineering students cut their teeth on Taiwanese semiconductors while European robotics labs routinely use Japanese hardware. Chinese universities themselves build on American software frameworks and open-source tools developed abroad. Exposure to imported technology is not a confession of weakness. What distinguishes serious systems from performative ones is not the origin of the hardware, but the honesty with which it is presented and the intellectual value extracted from it. In the world’s leading universities, off-the-shelf tools are dissected, stress-tested and improved upon. The learning lies in the code rewritten, the papers published and the incremental advances pushed into the public domain. Indian higher education, particularly in its fast-expanding private sector, too often reverses this logic. Under pressure to attract students, climb rankings and impress regulators, institutions substitute branding for substance. ‘Centres of Excellence’ proliferate faster than serious research output. Memoranda of understanding are announced with fanfare, while citations, patents and reproducible results lag behind. This creates a more delicate problem of dependence without discernment. China’s growing penetration of global education and technology markets is real, strategic and unapologetic. Chinese firms aggressively market low-cost, sophisticated hardware to universities worldwide, embedding their platforms early in the learning cycle. Western firms have done the same for decades. The danger in the uncritical adoption of foreign hardware combined with rhetorical nationalism. When imported technology loudly rebranded as indigenous, the result is not self-reliance but self-deception. The contrast with China itself is instructive. Chinese universities are ruthless about separating demonstration from development. Foreign tools are used extensively but credit, authorship and ownership are policed with care. The aim is not to impress visitors at expos, but to dominate standards bodies and supply chains. India’s AI race will not be won in expo halls or summit pavilions. It will be decided in classrooms that teach mathematical foundations rather than buzzwords. When Indian institutions exaggerate, it weakens the credibility of genuinely good work being done elsewhere in the system. It encourages scepticism among global partners. And it reinforces a lingering suspicion that India’s technological rise is more rhetorical than real. If ‘Make in India’ is to mean anything in the age of artificial intelligence, it must begin with intellectual honesty. Otherwise, the country risks being quietly dismissed in a very serious race.

Annasaheb Patil: A Lifelong Advocate for Workers’ Rights

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

Annasaheb Patil

Annasaheb Pandurang Patil, a member of the Maharashtra Legislative Council, made significant contributions to the uplifting of scattered workers in Mumbai. For this reason, he is regarded as the architect of the progress of the Maratha and Mathadi workers in Maharashtra. Annasaheb Patil proposed a simple yet broad definition of a `Maratha,’ stating that every person residing in Maharashtra and standing for its defence is a Maratha. With this ideology, he established the Mathadi Workers Union and the All India Maratha Federation.

When Annasaheb Patil arrived in Mumbai from his native village, Mandrulkole in Patan Taluka, he began his career as a worker. At that time, workers in Mumbai were facing dire conditions, and a majority of them were Marathas. Annasaheb Patil believed that workers needed to experience both economic and social progress. He deeply studied their issues and began organising them, forming the Mathadi Workers Union, formally known as the Maharashtra State Mathadi Transport and General Workers Union. This became one of the largest labour unions in the state.

At the time, most labour unions were led by communists, but Annasaheb Patil rejected their ideologies, instead building a union based on Indigenous principles. He organised protests and movements, putting forward workers’ demands for better wages, healthcare, and basic rights for workers before the government. His relentless work eventually bore fruit, and he became the guiding force for workers.

Annasaheb Patil’s efforts resonated with the government. The then-Chief Minister, Yashwantrao Chavan, addressed the demands put forth by Patil, and on June 5, 1969, the Mathadi Workers Act was enacted in Maharashtra. This legislation brought joy and relief to the workers, improving their quality of life. Due to this act, facilities such as hospitals, consumer societies, housing through CIDCO, and educational and medical services were made available to Mathadi workers. Patil’s contribution to their welfare was pivotal.

Today, the issue of Maratha reservation is a significant topic in Maharashtra. Annasaheb Patil, the father of the Maratha reservation movement, made sure that his demands were reasonable and did not disturb social unity. His image is revered across Maharashtra for this reason.

Annasaheb Patil worked tirelessly for the welfare of Mathadi workers, most of whom were Marathas. He united the 12 Balutedars and 18 Pagadi communities, forming various organisations under the All India Maratha Federation. His leadership earned him widespread respect, and on July 8, 1980, he became a member of the Legislative Council.

During this time, the demand for Maratha reservations based on economic criteria was gaining traction. Annasaheb Patil toured Maharashtra while advocating for this cause. He resolved to lead a protest march to the Legislative Assembly. As an MLA in the Congress government, Patil, along with Advocate Shashikant Pawar, led a massive procession from Azad Maidan, Mumbai, on March 22, 1982. The sight of the marchers carrying Shivaji Maharaj’s saffron flag caught the attention of the citizens of Mumbai.

Annasaheb Patil submitted a list of nine demands to the then Chief Minister, Babasaheb Bhosale. Realising that the demand for reservation would not be considered, he declared that if justice were not served to the Maratha community, he would not live to see the next sunrise. True to his word, he ended his life on March 23, 1982, leaving an indelible mark on the state.

Annasaheb Patil devoted his life to the progress of Mathadi workers, raising their issues before the government and improving their living conditions. His efforts for the Maratha reservation and social justice brought attention to the problems faced by the community. His life was a testament to the struggle for the welfare of society. Rightfully, he is remembered as the father of the Maratha reservation movement and the architect of Maratha upliftment.

On his birth anniversary, we humbly pay tribute to the sacred memory of Annasaheb Patil.

(The writer is a BJP member of Maharashtra Legislative Council. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page