“She was not aware of the technical origins of the product and in her enthusiasm of being on camera, gave factually incorrect information.” These were the words used in the official press release by Galgotias University following the controversy at the AI Impact Summit in Delhi. The statement came across as defensive, petty, and deeply insensitive.
This is the same university that enjoyed significant visibility and space at the AI Summit in Delhi, which was not the case with the IITs present. It is also the same institution that was awarded as one of the best universities over a decade ago by the then Chief Minister of Gujarat, Mr. Modi. The university is widely perceived to have strong right-wing dominance, whether in its faculty or management, and that, for many observers, explains much about its functioning.
When the Head of the Communication faculty stepped forward to explain what was presented as their innovation — which was later identified as a Chinese product — the institution’s top leadership chose to make her the scapegoat. Instead of taking collective responsibility, they shifted the blame onto an individual in an apparent attempt to distance themselves from what many have described as a deeply embarrassing episode. Let us examine what happened and why the fallout has been so severe.
At the AI Impact Summit expo, Galgotias University showcased what it presented as an AI innovation named “Orion.” However, when videos from the stall surfaced online, viewers quickly identified the robot as a commercially available product manufactured by a Chinese company. Questions began pouring in regarding the authenticity of the claim and the university’s representation of the product. As scrutiny intensified, authorities removed the stall, and the university withdrew from the expo. The viral clip triggered national and international criticism, raising uncomfortable questions about India’s AI credibility.
The university subsequently released an apology letter but instead of taking institutional responsibility, the statement placed the blame squarely on a faculty member, accusing her of miscommunication in her enthusiasm on camera. Rather than calming the situation, the tone of the letter aggravated public outrage.
From a branding and marketing standpoint, this case reflects a textbook failure in crisis communication. The first rule of effective crisis management is simple: acknowledge, accept, and respond — do not defend or deflect. Speed is critical. In the digital age, brands must enter the conversation immediately, especially when news and social media are shaping public perception in real time. Stakeholders expect honesty. What they received instead was a statement that appeared to scapegoat a faculty member.
In an AI-driven knowledge economy, trust and transparency are non-negotiable. Audiences today can quickly detect tokenism or evasion. The delayed and poorly framed apology allowed negative commentary, political narratives, and international criticism to spiral further. In crisis communication, delay is often interpreted as denial.
Beyond marketing failures, the episode raises serious ethical concerns, particularly regarding how the faculty member was portrayed. The press release emphasised that she was “overwhelmed” on camera, implying emotional instability or incompetence. This framing was not only unnecessary but demeaning. Social media soon filled with memes and comments focusing on her attire, appearance, and composure rather than the institutional lapse. Such reactions reflect deeper societal biases. Women professionals are often reduced to discussions about their clothing, demeanour, or perceived emotional fragility.
This episode echoes what organisational psychology describes as the “Glass Cliff” phenomenon where women are more likely to be placed in high-risk positions during times of crisis, only to be blamed when things go wrong. In this case, institutional failure occurred at multiple levels — right from planning, product verification, compliance, and to communication. Yet the public narrative concentrated on one individual.
True leadership requires shielding team members in moments of crisis. As leadership expert Simon Sinek famously said in his TED Talk, “In times of crisis, leaders go first and they never make their teams feel insecure.” Unfortunately, that principle appeared absent here as no one from the leadership came forward to shield her. Instead, they fired her, as we see Neha’s LinkedIn profile set to ‘open to work’.
This was not a minor internal event; it was a national summit with international attendees and global media presence. Every participating institution carried the responsibility of representing not just itself but the country’s innovation ecosystem. An ideal response should have included an immediate public apology: a straightforward, unconditional apology from the leadership — without justification, excuses, or blame-shifting. The responsibility should have been institutional, not individual.
It required leadership visibility, with senior leadership addressing the media directly, taking accountability and assuring corrective measures. A rapid communication strategy was essential, ensuring that within the first hour, the apology appeared across press channels and all official social media platforms.
After the public acknowledgment, a structured crisis communication plan should have followed, including the formation of an internal task force, clear briefing of media spokespersons, a defined social media engagement strategy, monitoring conversations using social listening tools, and sentiment analysis to prioritise responses.
In today’s digital environment, where meme culture can dominate narratives, strategic participation in conversations — rather than silence — helps regain narrative control. And yes, do not ignore internal stakeholders. Often, brands focus exclusively on external reputation while neglecting internal audiences. In this case, students, employees, and parents also required reassurance. Transparent communication with internal stakeholders is crucial to prevent speculation and morale damage. Trust inside the institution is just as important as trust outside it.
Historically, organisations facing crises either crumble under reputational damage or rebuild through decisive action. This case originated from internal misjudgment, making recovery more challenging. Rebuilding credibility will require more than carefully worded statements. It demands excellence in academic and research delivery, transparent communication practices, ethical branding standards, and protection of employees during crises.
As the saying goes, what helps a brand in crisis is what it has built before the crisis. Integrity, once shaken, can only be restored through consistent and visible action.
The controversy serves as a broader reminder: in an AI-driven world where credibility defines influence, institutions like Galgotias University must prioritise authenticity, accountability, and ethical leadership. A crisis does not define an organisation — but how it responds certainly does.
In the case of Galgotias, which has often been seen as supported by the ruling regime and aligned with the government’s ideological framework, recent incidents have raised serious concerns. It is therefore not entirely surprising to see students faltering publicly — whether it was a student responding “Sanskrit” as his favourite programming language during an AI Summit interaction with one of the founders, or students struggling to answer reporters’ questions during a rally ahead of the 2024 elections regarding the so-called “Urban Naxal” issue. Such moments inevitably raise questions about the academic competence and intellectual environment being nurtured within the institution.
It is worth reflecting on where the institution’s legacy is headed at a time when the world of AI is evolving at an unprecedented pace. Is it positioning itself as a serious contributor to technological innovation, or drifting towards becoming a space shaped primarily by ideological leanings? Only time will tell. However, one thing remains evident: in the current political climate, such controversies no longer come as a surprise.
---
*Feelance content writer & editor based in Nagpur. Co-founder, TruthScape
Comments