When Radhika Yadav, a 25-year-old state-level tennis player, was allegedly shot dead by her father in Gurugram on July 11, the incident was initially treated by investigators as a case of domestic conflict.
Her father, Deepak Yadav, was arrested from the scene and, according to the police, confessed to the crime. He allegedly told officers he was battling depression and distress over remarks from their village about his dependence on his daughter’s income.
However, within hours of news about the murder appearing online, a parallel narrative began circulating across social media platforms.
Across social media platforms, the hate crime has been twisted to give it a misogynistic and communal narrative—suggesting that Radhika’s killing was linked to “love jihad” and that her father’s act was one of honour and protection.
Despite no police claim about any relationship motive or religious angle, the murder has quickly become the subject of toxic online discourse.
What Does The FIR Say?
According to the FIR, Deepak Yadav allegedly shot Radhika with his licensed revolver at their residence in Gurugram’s Sushant Lok area.
The complaint was filed by Kuldeep Yadav, Radhika’s uncle, who lives with his family on the ground floor of the same building. He rushed upstairs upon hearing gunshots and found Radhika lying in a pool of blood.
In his confession to police, Deepak reportedly cited growing ridicule from villagers in their native Wazirabad, who mocked him for relying on his daughter’s income. He had allegedly asked Radhika to quit her coaching job, but she refused.
Some media reports quoted police sources as saying that Radhika had deactivated her social media accounts a few days before the killing. Her iPhone has since been sent to the Haryana government’s Department of Information Technology (DITECH) in an attempt to retrieve deleted messages and media. Officials believe the data could shed more light on the days leading up to the incident.
So far, police have not confirmed the presence of any romantic relationship, nor have they mentioned any religious or communal motive behind the crime.
Online Claims Without Evidence
Several widely shared posts on X have defended the father’s act to protect his daughter from “love jihad”—a conspiracy theory that falsely claims Muslim men lure Hindu women into relationships for religious conversion.
One widely circulated post by X user Adarsh Kashyap reframed the murder not just as an honour killing, but as an act against so-called “love jihad”. He highlighted an old music video, which is now viral, featuring Radhika and co-actor Inamul Haq. The user alleges that the video, which includes Muslim-sounding names in its credits, was part of a deliberate “trap” to ensnare Radhika.
His post insinuates that Radhika’s father, Deepak Yadav, killed her as a protective act against this alleged “trap”.
Other users went further, glorifying the murder and calling it a model response. One wrote, “Every father should do the same if they want to save their daughters from Muslims,” explicitly inciting violence.
Another described the act as “courageous”, suggesting that Radhika’s death was necessary to preserve social values and morality in Haryana. The post falsely accused Radhika of engaging in a “pre-marital act of disgrace” for simply appearing in a music video.
No connection between Radhika and Inamul Haq has been established beyond their appearance in the music video, which was shot over a year ago. The actor from Uttar Pradesh, however, has become an unexpected target of these narratives.
“Parental Control”
Amid the barrage of conspiracy theories, Radhika’s close friend Himaanshika Singh Rajput, in an Instagram video post, denied the claims circulating online. In the clip, which has received over 5 million views, she said that Radhika has lived under extreme “parental control” and was “not involved in any romantic relationship”.
“She was sweet and innocent… she loved making videos but gave all of that up due to her parents’ pressure,” she said in the video. Himaanshika, also a tennis player, said that Radhika’s father would accompany her everywhere and she would often have to show her video calls to her parents back home.
Speaking directly about the music video, she said the shoot took place 1.5 years ago and that Radhika’s father had dropped her off at the location. “The narrative around that video is being twisted,” she added.
Rajput also disputed media speculation linking the death to any Muslim co-actor. “There is no proof of any relationship because there was none,” she said.
Actor-singer Inamul Haq, who appeared alongside Radhika in the music video, told ANI, that he met Radhika only once during the shoot. Speaking from Dubai, he said, “She was just a co-actor to me. I have had no contact with her after that shoot.”
Haq also expressed concern over being linked to the case without any basis, adding that the video was being highlighted simply because it is publicly available on YouTube.
These posts not only communalise a tragedy but also misuse Radhika’s image and weaponise her death to justify violence against women and minorities, painting her as a symbol of dishonour and her father as a hero.
Some users drew comparisons to the 2022 Shraddha Walkar case, suggesting that Radhika’s father had “prevented a worse outcome”. These posts imply that controlling or punishing women for their choices is a legitimate preemptive act—a notion that has proven dangerous time and again, as history shows.
While none of these claims have been corroborated by law enforcement, they continue to circulate widely.
Radhika Erased, Turned Into a Symbol
In the aftermath of Radhika Yadav’s gruesome murder, a significant portion of online discourse—shaped by right-wing and communal narratives—has shifted attention away from her individuality, instead framing her as a symbol of broader ideological battles.
Within these spaces, violent acts against women are being rationalised through loaded phrases like “protecting Hindu daughters,” “maintaining family honour,” or “resisting reel culture”.
An old video, deleted Instagram accounts and photos are being selectively circulated online to support false claims of a romantic or communal angle. With Radhika no longer alive to defend herself, these digital remnants are being used to construct a narrative she cannot contest—reducing her to a symbol while erasing the reality of her controlled life and the circumstances that led to her death.
