English to Punjabi Dictionary - Meaning of Judiciously in

A while ago on this (https://www.reddit.com/hinduism/comments/faoscq/tolerance_has_a_limit_then_intolerance_becomes/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x) post, I was saying this:

That doesn't mean those who are both physically and more importantly mentally capable of wielding one should give it up in the hopes of peace. That doesn't mean attack indiscriminately either. That is exactly the story of Ekalavya. 

And a couple of our friends wanted to understand the relevance to Ekalavya. Here we go.
To weild a weapon, one must posses at least three qualifications: purpose, balance and skill.
Ekalavya got the skill - we should give it to him. In some areas he is probably better than arjuna, maybe, we don't know. Or at least, I never seen it mentioned so in the original scriptures, but we could give him some room on this one.
Next, let's take purpose.
Ekalavya wanted to learn advanced weaponary. The kind of weaponary knowledge Ekalavya was seeking were beyond the needs of a king of a very large kingdom.
In todays terms, Ekalavya wanted to learn how to build, operate and deploy nuclear war heads, inter-continental ballistic missiles, bombs and even the weapons that could control elements - e.g. water and air. Not just one, all of them.
Fortunately, we don't have such weapons that could control elements yet. And they did not use biological weapons, they considered it nIchaM and hEyaM, a sign of incapability. We have them - so we are equal, I guess?
Anyways, coming back to the point, was Ekalavya fit to be a king? Let us examine.
First let us touch his background a bit and examine who he is. Let us start with his role in his society: he was a common man, living in a very rural society, in very close proximity of forest. He was sort of a hunter-gatherer, along with doing some farming.
Second, his role in politics. Again, he is a common man. Not a politician. His interest is like most of us. At most, we like to pass a few comments.
Third, skill set. To be a king, it is not just enough to be strong and skilled in the arts of war. War is just a part of policy for the kings. As we see today, a politician has a lot more on his plate other than war. A war, ideally, is a very rare occurance for a king.
They need to understand and become expert in dealing with a lot of social, economic issues, diplomacy, management and more importantly, control. Too little control, the society becomes falls apart, too much control - the society ceases to exist, eventually triggering a revolution.
In addition, a king must have dharmAdharma vichakShaNa and extreme self-control. These are minimum qualities required for one to be considered for a potential king training and evaluation.
A potential king is taught all of the various techniques, accumulated knowledge, tips and tricks to deal with whatever his duties will be.
We need to note, a queen is considered equal to a king. She must know everything a king knows and more. She must also know how to keep the king in check.
A king must understand law, order and punishment. Any punishment must fit the crime. It should deter others from commiting similar crime, while not being excessive. As we can see today, it is extremely hard to achieve that fine balance.
In short, a potential king is taught how to be benevolent and just with extreme balance.
While we are at it, we also need to understand being a king was considered a responsibility, not a privilege. We also need to note that kings were treated as employees and were paid salaries - often very generous but still salaries. The kings do not own their kingdom!
Now, let us examine if Ekalavya could be a king.
Let us examine some of the basic qualities a potential king must have: willing to take on responsibility, maintain law and order, be a just ruler and practice extreme balance.
First, he must be interested to be a king. He never showed interest in becoming a king. He never wanted to take up on the responsibility of a ruler. His goal was to learn advanced weaponary and become the greatest in that field.
Second, even if he is interested, he does not have the concept of justice in a much larger social system, very much like most of us. We all have concepts of basic justice, but I am sure most of us are not qualified to pass judgements in a court of law. And he is not interested in learning justice or even the rules of law. He goes to guru drONAcharya and asks him to teach him advanced weaponary.
Finally, he never pariticipated in large economies to understand the dynamics of economic systems at a country level, again like most of us.
In short, Ekalavya is just like most of us: a common man. A very common man who lived by as an hunter-gatherer and farmer. Paid his taxes. Did not wish to be bothered about how the system works.
For his profession and life-style, he does need weapons. But his needs are very basic.
We can compare his needs to those of farmers and hunters in today's world. Farmers today need to maintain some basic weaponry, sickles, sticks etc. And in most developed countries, they are either explicitly or implicitly licensed to maintain certain kinds of guns. His needs were similar. He used to hunt with a bow and arrows, spears etc.
So, there is no definitive purpose. So, if a common man today wants to learn and practice how to build, operate and deploy bombs and nuclear weapons, would the government allow it? Would you allow it? Would you live next door to such a person?
Finally, the balance.
Anyone who is weilding a weapon must be extremely well balanced. Unfortunately, in todays world, this principle is violated so often. In fact, it is very rare to see someone weilding a weapon display a very fine balance, exert extreme control over their emotions and a very judicious use of such power. As a result, we almost live in a chaos.
Ekalavya was not much different.
We know the story of how he shoots seven arrows into a dog's mouth. While it displays an extreme skill, it also displays his lack of control over his emotions and lack of a sense of balance.
It is the nature of a dog to bark. On top of it, the hunter's dogs are trained to bark when they notice something. They are trained to stand their station and bark until their "handler" arrives and relieve them. Being a hunter himself Ekalavya understands this very well.
Ideally, when a dog noticed his presence and barked, Ekalavya should have just left it alone, like how we let a police dog sniff us, say, in a Railway Station. Or, he could just throw a small stone at it and it'll run away.
Instead, he decided to shoot seven arrows into a dog's mouth whose nature is to bark and trained to bark. He is annoyed just by a dog's bark. And in returne, he shot a dog. With seven arrows!
While demonstrating his lack of control over his own emotions, it also goes on to display his extreme interest in demonstrating his weaponary at every opportunity without evaluating the situation. He could be easily triggered by smart minds.
Thus, guru drONAchArya denied him the knowledge of advanced weapons. Not because he is not a kshatriya, but because he is seeking something he does not need and cannot control.
Having said that, what happened to him, was it justified? No. Absolutely not. For that, guru drONAchArya had to pay the price - by having his own head cut off.
यस्माच्च येन च यथा च यदा च यच्च
यावच्च यत्र च शुभाशुभमात्म-कर्म ।
तस्माच्च तेन च तथा च तदा च तच्च
तावच्च तत्र च विधातृ-वशाद् उपैति ॥
yasmAchcha yena cha yathA cha yadA cha yachcha
yAvachcha yatra cha shubhAshubhamAtma\-karma |
tasmAchcha tena cha tathA cha tadA cha tachcha
tAvachcha tatra cha vidhAtR^i\-vashAd upaiti ||
Happy to take any questions, as long as they originate in curiosity or interest. Any baseless criticism will meet an extremely thick skin.
---
These are the excerpts of discussions and debates between myself and and fellow scholars. Everything said here is thoroughly discussed observations of eminent scholars e.g. Dr. Pullela Sriramachandrudu, for example. Some of their discussions are now in the open - YouTube carries a lot of them.
Both myself and other scholars involved study discussions and discourses from Tamil, Telugu, Hindi and English languages and discussions in SanskritaM, where they exist. All references are from `mUla mahAbhArataM` by Gita Press, Gorakhpur and TTD Publications, Tirupati.
​
Edit 1: Typos and about the author.