In Khajrana, one of Indore’s most densely Muslim localities, a private school has quietly institutionalised religious separation and Islamophobia. The International School of Bombay recently conducted two separate annual functions, one for Muslim students and another for non-Muslim students, largely Hindus.
Accounts from parents, a teacher, and members of the local community indicate that the segregation extends beyond annual events, with students allegedly placed in different sections based on religion. Some parents also claim that Muslim surnames were removed from scorecards in earlier years. The issue has drawn attention only through social media reels and local circulation.
“My daughter and her classmates were told to prepare their dance performances on their own. They were not allowed to perform patriotic songs and were instead asked to present Punjabi songs. While they practised at home over video calls, the other students were coordinated and guided by teachers. Their annual function lasted three to four hours, while ours ended in just two hours and had no chief guest,” said Nighat, the parent of a Muslim Class 8 student, describing the disparity between the two events.
Nighat, along with several other parents, protested outside the school’s main gate on the day of the annual function. Since then, demonstrations have continued in various localities of Indore’s Khajrana area, with parents raising objections primarily against the school’s decision to conduct two separate annual functions.
While a fellow journalist and I visited the school posing as a Hindu couple seeking admission for a Class 5 child, we spoke to Poonam Tiwari, a mathematics teacher at the school. Tiwari said she has been teaching at the school for the past year and currently handles the “M” sections of Classes 6 and 7, indicating that these sections comprise Muslim students.
She assured us that the school performs well in academics and extracurricular activities and encouraged us to seek admission, stating that there had never been any communal incident involving students or teachers.
During the conversation, Tiwari described the students in the sections she teaches as “good students” who “study well.” She also advised us to request admission specifically in the “A1” and “A2” sections, noting that Hindu students are in the majority there.
When asked about the apparent segregation of students, she said that Muslim students were earlier taught in the afternoon shift but were merged into the morning shift about a year ago. According to her, the sections have remained the same since then and have not been reshuffled.
For the admission of our supposed Class 5 child, the school’s administrative staff member, Nidhi Joshi, told us that one of the seven directors of the institution had previously worked with Nita Ambani and had been associated with the Dhirubhai Ambani International School in Mumbai, and had subsequently brought what she described as a “Mumbai school culture” to Indore. She provided a detailed fee structure, explained the curriculum, and gave us a tour of the school corridors, swimming pool, and sports complex, but said she did not have permission to show the classrooms.
When asked about the “controversy” surrounding the school, Joshi denied all allegations, stating, “Why would we discriminate? We are here to provide knowledge and give everyone an equal chance.”
Joshi also showed us the school’s advertisements published in three major Hindi newspapers of Madhya Pradesh—Dainik Bhaskar, Naidunia, and Patrika. This helped explain why, despite widespread circulation of videos on social media, no reports on the issue had appeared in these publications at the time of reporting.
At around 2 pm, during dispersal time, we spoke to several parents who had come to receive their children. We deliberately approached both Muslim and Hindu parents, seeking their views on the school and asking whether we should withdraw our child’s recent admission, as the fees had been paid a month earlier and we were now concerned about the school environment.
Nighat, a parent present at the time, advised us to withdraw the admission, alleging that the school administration had been functioning along communal lines for the past two to three years. She further claimed that last year, the school’s academic scoreboard displayed the names of Muslim students using only their first names, while non-Muslim students were listed with their full names.
Speaking about the two annual functions, Nighat said that the annual function for Muslim students was held on February 2, 2026, at Ravindra Natya Grah in Indore. According to her, the event had only about 25 per cent occupancy of the auditorium and was attended exclusively by Muslim students and their parents. She said her daughter participated in the programme and that many Muslim students were asked to prepare their dance performances on their own, mostly to Punjabi and Bollywood songs. Several students, she added, were disoriented on the day of the performance as there was no coordination or guidance from teachers or school staff. The function lasted for approximately two hours and had no chief guest, with only school staff and students in attendance.
In contrast, she said that the annual function for non-Muslim students was held on February 3, 2026, at the same venue and had more than 50 per cent occupancy. She said the performances were structured and coordinated by teachers, a chief guest was present, the programme lasted for three to four hours, and refreshments were provided for parents.
She further alleged that when some parents attempted to enter the event wearing visibly identifiable attire such as burqas or abayas, kurta-pyjamas, or skull caps, they were denied entry.
Following this, she said, parents protested at the venue, contacted media personnel, and attempted to speak with the school principal, who allegedly refused to engage and asked them to “come to the school and talk.” According to Nighat, when parents went to the school the following day, they found the gates locked.
We also spoke to another parent, the father of a Class 6 student, who had a trishul tattoo on his hand and was visibly non-Muslim. Commenting on the annual function controversy and the alleged segregation of students, he said the issue “should not be made an issue,” claiming that the “mahaul” (environment) in society was already communal. He argued that the school authorities were only trying to ensure safety by making separate arrangements for students. Regarding the annual functions, he said the decision was taken to accommodate Muslim students due to the Muslim festival Shab-e-Barat, which fell on the same date, and that the school therefore adjusted dates and arrangements accordingly on parents’ requests.
The explanation appeared less like a proactive step and more like a patchwork response after the issue gained traction on social media. In their view, the insensitivity lay in the fact that the school authorities had either failed to consider Shab-e-Barat at the outset or were unaware of a significant Muslim festival altogether, casting doubt on claims of a genuine last-minute rescheduling made in response to parental requests.
This perception, parents argued, was reinforced by the school’s public-facing representation. A review of the institution’s website shows photographs of celebrations such as Holi, Diwali, Navratri, Christmas, and Teachers’ Day, but none marking Eid. The list of national and religious holidays on the website mentions only Eid Milad-un-Nabi (the Prophet’s birthday), while omitting Eid-ul-Fitr and Eid-ul-Adha, the two major festivals observed by Muslims. Parents also pointed out that festivals of other non-Hindu communities are not reflected on the website either, which, in their view, indicates a broader pattern of selective cultural visibility rather than an isolated oversight.
Syed Qasim Ali, the elder brother of a Class 5 student at the school, also acknowledged the conduct of two separate annual functions and the alleged segregation of students in classrooms. Qasim said he has lodged a complaint on the Chief Minister’s Helpline, flagging what he described as “communal differences in the school.” In his complaint, he raised concerns about abusive behaviour during fee collection and alleged that communal ideas were being subtly seeded in the minds of children. He further claimed that some teachers practised soft Hindutva, citing an instance where a teacher allegedly told students, “M is for mango, not monkey, because animal monkey is denoted as Hanuman ji.”
Qasim said his first complaint to the CM Helpline, made in September 2025, was regarding harassment over fee collection. Following this, he alleged, his younger brother was targeted by school authorities and accused of “bad touch” involving female classmates. According to him, the parents were called to the school and subjected to harassment, despite there being no witnesses present and no complaints from the girls or their parents, even after repeated demands for clarification.
Speaking over the phone, Rubina Khan, a Congress corporator, confirmed that she had visited the school in connection with the issue, noting that the International School of Bombay is a prominent and widely recognised institution in Khajrana. She said the school management had sought one month’s time to address the concerns, particularly regarding the conduct of two separate annual functions. “If no visible change is seen, I will take the matter to Chief Minister Mohan Yadav,” she said.
During the conversation, she also stated that the school caters to a student population that is approximately 70 per cent Muslim, and warned that she would urge parents to withdraw admissions if the institution continued to function along communal lines. It is to be noted that no legal action, FIR, or public interest litigation has been initiated by the corporator in this matter so far.
About an hour after dispersal, my colleague and I returned to the school to raise concerns based on our conversations with parents. This time, we were received differently. We were met by an administrative staff member, Joy, who did not allow us to explain our concerns and said, “If you pay the fees today and book the seat, it is fine. Otherwise, we do not have a seat for your child. You have been asking questions to parents outside the gate. We do not have a seat for your child. Thank you.”
We were only able to confirm his name before being asked to leave the campus. It appeared that the school authorities were aware of, and displeased by, our interactions with parents outside the school gate.
