Agree. Yesterday I posted similar elsewhere, posting here again...
In fact Ahuja family has now enough provocation to peruse a legal fight against office bearers of the society. The circulated ban against a minor child,bearing signatures of the office bearers, sighting frivolous reasons, is a trespass against that child, as well, fraught with malafude intentions of harassing and chasing an existing member out of his lawful possession. The keyword is that intently exaggerated word 'life threatening incident' and subsequent declaration of a boycott. JP can state the following facts to prove frivolous nature of the circular;
1.)The incident as reported by security personnel has clear mark of an unintended push, messed shoe lace and with reasonable chance of original provocation from a senior and adolescent boy.
2.)The size difference, markedly obvious and relevant, as rightly argued by Pinky in the meeting, significantly disallows a 'life threatening' capabilities of a lopsidedly undersized child.
3.)The exaggeration on injury, described as 'life threatening', is malicious. The victim, son of the secretary, was finely present in that very meeting, hardly two or three hours after the incident! Far cry from a patient fighting for his 'life'- on life supporting system saving him from the 'threats' on his life!! And then on very next morning he was kicking and sporting in the society functions.
4.)If incidences of children's bickering are reason enough then society meetings would be a daily routine in all societies.
The exaggeration in reaction from neutral members is obvious. For who would not think of a distinct possibility of a misbehaviour from a senior teen, if he gets to be pushed about by a lone girl? Or who could be more threatening to society's peace - a frail girl known for her academic brilliance or a rowdy teen, unfamiliar and just returning from away?
But of course, cvs will narrate no such plausibility and hence, we are better left with reality cynicism put into forum posts barely.