Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy has faced criticism from the BJP after making remarks comparing the political use of Lord Ram and Lord Shiva during an event in New Delhi.

Speaking at The Conclave 2026 on Monday, September 28, Revanth Reddy contrasted the BJP’s use of the “Jai Shri Ram” slogan with the “Hara Hara Mahadev” chant. He said both Lord Ram and Lord Shiva are deities, before drawing a political and social comparison between the two.

What Revanth Reddy said about Ram and Shiva

Revanth Reddy said the BJP places greater emphasis on “Jai Shri Ram”, while people in southern India commonly use “Hara Hara Mahadev”.

He questioned why BJP leaders do not use the “Hara Hara Mahadev” slogan as frequently.

The Telangana Chief Minister then made the remark that has drawn attention, saying that Lord Ram is the “God of the rich” and Lord Shiva is the “God of the poor”. He also linked the comparison to his broader argument about differences between political and cultural traditions in northern and southern India.

Reddy further described the political-cultural divide using the terms “Dravidians” for the South and “Aryans” for the North, while saying that people in the South are more associated with devotion to Shiva and people in the North with devotion to Ram.

BJP criticism of Revanth Reddy

The remarks have triggered criticism from the BJP, bringing the religious comparison into the ongoing political exchanges between the BJP and the Congress.

Reddy’s comments came in the context of a wider political speech in which he criticised the BJP-led central government on issues including the Election Commission, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the proposed delimitation of Lok Sabha constituencies.

Revanth Reddy’s wider remarks at the event

During the same event, the Telangana Chief Minister also alleged that the political situation was no longer simply a “North versus South” divide but had become a “Gujarat versus the entire country” situation.

He criticised the Centre over what he described as inadequate support for Telangana’s development projects and raised concerns about the possible impact of population-based delimitation on southern states. These were statements and allegations made by Reddy during the event.

Reddy also criticised the SIR exercise and called for a nationwide “SIR Go Back” movement. He alleged that the revision process could lead to the removal of voters and questioned the role of the Election Commission. These claims were made by the Chief Minister and are presented as his allegations, rather than independently established facts.

Why Revanth Reddy’s Ram-Shiva remark matters

The “Ram for rich, Shiva for poor” comment has become the most prominent part of Reddy’s remarks because it directly connects religious symbolism with his political argument about the BJP and Congress.

The statement was made as part of a broader discussion about the perceived political and cultural differences between northern and southern India. The BJP’s criticism of the comment has added another point of contention to the political exchange between the two parties.

The Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to decide the dispute over the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) name and its ‘Flowers & Grass’ election symbol within a defined timeline.

The order came while the court was hearing a plea filed by Mamata Banerjee challenging the Election Commission’s interim decision to freeze the use of the party’s original name and reserved symbol amid competing claims between rival factions.

The court has given the parties four weeks to complete their pleadings, including responses, affidavits and counter-affidavits. The ECI will then have three months to adjudicate the dispute. This effectively establishes a four-month timeline for completion of the process.

What did the Supreme Court direct?

The Supreme Court directed the contesting sides to place their responses and other documents on record within four weeks.

After the pleadings are completed, the Election Commission has been asked to take three months to decide the dispute concerning the party’s name and election symbol. The matter is being considered under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.

The Supreme Court’s directions therefore provide a structured timeline for the ECI’s adjudication of the competing claims.

Why is the TMC name and symbol dispute before the Supreme Court?

The case follows an interim decision by the Election Commission in September to prevent the rival factions from using the All India Trinamool Congress name and the reserved ‘Flowers & Grass’ symbol while the competing claims are examined.

The Commission had said the dispute required a substantive determination under Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.

Mamata Banerjee subsequently approached the Supreme Court challenging the ECI’s interim arrangement. The Supreme Court is examining the challenge while the substantive dispute remains before the poll panel.

What names and symbols are being used temporarily?

Following the Election Commission’s interim decision, the two rival factions were allotted separate identities for the upcoming by-elections.

The faction led by Mamata Banerjee was allotted the name Mamata All India Trinamool Congress and the Football Player symbol. The rival faction was allotted the name Democratic Trinamool Congress and the Envelope symbol.

These are interim arrangements and do not amount to a final determination of which faction is entitled to the original AITC name and ‘Flowers & Grass’ symbol.

What happens next in the TMC symbol dispute?

The immediate next step is for the rival sides to complete their pleadings within four weeks.

Once that stage is completed, the ECI has three months to decide the dispute. The Supreme Court has thus effectively provided a four-month framework for the proceedings to reach a decision.

The three-day nationwide bank strike scheduled to begin on Monday has been deferred following a meeting between the United Forum of Bank Unions (UFBU) and the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) on Sunday night.

The development came after the two sides held talks ahead of the planned strike, which was expected to affect banking operations across the country.

The UFBU, an umbrella forum representing bank unions, had called for the three-day nationwide strike. The action was scheduled to begin on September 28.

Bank strike deferred after Sunday meeting

The decision to defer the strike followed an eleventh-hour meeting between representatives of the UFBU and the IBA on Sunday night.

The proposed strike had raised concerns about disruption to banking services for millions of customers. With the strike now deferred, the immediate three-day disruption that was scheduled to begin Monday will not take place as planned.

The development comes after earlier efforts by the government and bank managements to persuade the unions to defer the strike. The unions had been seeking, among other demands, the introduction of a five-day banking system.

What were the bank unions demanding?

The UFBU’s demands included the introduction of five-day banking. Other issues raised by the unions included improvements in pension-related matters, a uniform dearness allowance formula for pensioners and an option for employees covered under the National Pension System to move to the old pension scheme.

The proposed strike had been scheduled for September 28, 29 and 30. The timing had also raised concerns because September 26 and 27 were a Saturday and Sunday, respectively, while September 30 coincides with the half-yearly closing of banks.