Inter-faith relationships between Hindu women and Muslim men have been a sore point for the Indian Right Wing for decades. The alleged defiance of traditional norms and customs by Hindu women has often led to moral policing and vigilantism. With the idea of ‘love-jihad’ making entry into public discourse, such vigilantism has seen exponential growth in recent years. The Shraddha Walkar murder case has added fuel to the fire as accused Aftab Ameen Poonawala is a Muslim. The heinous act was met with widespread condemnation from all spheres of society. As more and more details of the gruesome murder became public, several prominent personalities took to social media platforms to express their shock. We first came to know that Shraddha and Aftab met on an online dating app and despite their parents’ disapproval, pursued the relationship and moved to Delhi. Subsequently, there were reports quoting Shraddha’s father where he said that he had disapproved of his daughter’s relationship with Aftab because the latter was a Muslim. As a result, Shraddha walked out of his home in Mumbai and they hadn’t been in touch for over a year. Since this piece of information came out, Aftab and Shraddha’s religious identities and political beliefs, and invasive scrutiny of their lifestyle and life choices became the focal point of much of the discourse — both in social and mainstream media. Several news media outlets relentlessly reported on the incident. Much of the reportage sought to sensationalize the crime with unpleasant details, communal undertones, and victim blaming and shaming. Interestingly, instead of focusing on violence against women in domestic spaces, from the very outset, the conversation veered towards a collective protest seeking surveillance and sanctions on inter-faith relationships. The accused in this case is a Muslim man and the victim is a Hindu woman. Hence the incident was lapped up by the love-jihad theorists who oppose such relationships to target Muslims. Rishi Bagree, for example, tweeted an image with the text, “श्रद्धा के जिंदा रहते उसको समझाते तो वह अंधभक्त बोल के ब्लॉक कर देती..”. (If somebody talked to Shraddha about this when she was alive, she would have blocked them calling them an ‘andh-bhakt’). Bagree implied that even if someone explained to Shraddha the inherent risks in getting into a relationship with a Muslim, she wouldn’t have listened because of her sociopolitical ideology. आज का कड़वा सच pic.twitter.com/ps7nS7eQMF — Rishi Bagree (@rishibagree) November 18, 2022 Bagree has 2.5 lakh followers on Twitter. When such opinions get amplified, they eventually facilitate collective hatred, often with real life consequences. The most common narratives of social media vigilantes were twofold: First, the accused, being a Muslim, is intrinsically a criminal. This is what is expected of him. Within hours of the case hitting the headlines, ‘Abdul’ and #lovejihaad started trending on social media. Several Twitter users (noticeably aligned with the Right Wing) tried to demonize the Muslim community by implying that being involved with a Muslim man or ‘Abdul’ would result in a fate similar to Shradhha’s. Editor-in-chief of OpIndia, Nupur J Sharma tweeted, “Aapka Abdul bhi waisa hi hai” (Archive). The implication is that all Muslim men would mete out the same treatment to their respective spouses as Aftab did to Shraddha. “Aapka Abdul bhi waisa hi hai” — Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) November 14, 2022 Second, a Hindu woman is at fault if she chooses a Muslim partner going against her family, transgressing her faith and ignoring the ‘obvious’ dangers. For example, @dr_vee95 tweeted: Always listen to your parents. You’ll be dead otherwise and people won’t even realise for over 6 months.#Shraddha pic.twitter.com/evWuGFaJke — dr_vee (@dr_vee95) November 15, 2022 The tweet implies that the deceased is as responsible, if not more, as the perpetrator since she was the one who defied her parents and walked out. The subtext of such a comment is that it is unethical for a woman to choose personal aspirations over the sanctity of institutions like the family. Hence, her death is, in some sense, justice for such an act of transgression. Apart from the obvious communal angle, these opinions also reflect a major part of the national sentiment, unveiling the ugly side of this nation’s tryst with gender sensitivity. The tweets and comments on social media are not only deeply sexist and degrading to the victim and women in general, but also lie on the fringes of gender-based hatred. Lying underneath the victim blaming and shaming, there is a deep rooted conception in the collective psyche of who a woman can be or cannot be, in other words, the stark differences between an ideal woman and a fallen woman.