Do you ever hear a word and wonder where it came from, and why we use it? That's etymology, my dude.

Wtf is etymology?

Good question. Basically, etymology is the science of investigating how words came to be and how words have developed over time. Rachel Barney has a pretty spicy explanation in the Oxford Studies of Ancient Philosophy:

As practiced by Socrates in the Cratylus, etymology involves a claim about the underlying semantic content of the name, what it really means or indicates. This content is taken to have been put there by the ancient name-givers: giving an etymology is thus a matter of unwrapping or decoding a name to find the message the name-givers have placed inside.

https://preview.redd.it/k6sdciwoz5051.jpg?width=222&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=087baf2678e83a65f0e716ad988add21161cfbbb

What the hell does this have to do with drugs?

Kind of nothing, kind of everything. These days, there's a lot of debate over the words we use. For instance,

Social justice issues, like how to describe gay people, how to talk about disabilities, and how to eradicate sexist language from the workplace.
Environmental issues, like whether we should say "global warming" or "climate change", and when exactly it goes from "climate change" to "climate crisis".
Art and cultural expression issues, like whether or not violent song lyrics contribute to juvenile delinquency or how to define art itself.
Government and political issues, like protecting First Amendment rights and what exactly you're allowed to scream at police officers before you get arrested.

No matter your stance on any given topic, we can all at least somewhat agree that words have weight and significance. Dan Jurafsky, a Humanities professor from Stanford, explains it like this:

Understanding why and how languages differ tells about the range of what is human, discovering what’s universal about languages can help us understand the core of our humanity.

All of this made me wonder about drugs and the people who use them. Drug users have unique slang, syntax, and structure that develops independently of the traditional language. Not only that, but drug users deal with incredible amounts of stigma from the community; stigma which begets even more convoluted terms to describe and label users and their habits. If language can have such a powerful effect on our attitudes, beliefs, mental processes, values, and feelings, I figured it would be worth it to look into a few of the terms we typically pepper into our speech. Maybe understanding the words themselves will help us better understand the community and its relationship to the rest of the world. So...yeah. Check out the history of some American drug slang, if you wish.

The Etymologies of Tweak-Speak:

Junkie: Someone who is addicted to any narcotic, originally used in the context of morphine addiction.

We'll dive right in with one of the most confusing words on the list. We know that junkie and junkhead both appeared as a way to describe drug users around 1910-1920. The root of the word is junk, and that's where we get stuck. No one seems to know where exactly junk came from, since it's been popping up randomly for the past 800 years or so, with centuries of lost record in between.
The Javanese are an ethnic group native to Java island and the surrounding area, in what is modern-day Indonesia. From as early as 1200 AD, the Javanese were experts at building boats, which they called djons. At this time, seafaring trade was expanding across the world, and China wanted a slice of the action. The only problem was that they really didn't know how to make boats sturdy enough to go all the way to the Indo-European regions where most of the trade was happening. So they copied the djons, which became junks.
Fast forward to the mid-14th century, and the junk ships were a huge part of international trade. The Portugese were so impressed with the junk ships, they created the word junco to describe them. From there, it became a maritime word that sailors used. This is the first time we see junk in English - which meant "old cable/rope used for caulking ships".
Basically, if your boat got a hole in the side, you could use some old rope (junk) to patch the hole. The English use may have been influenced by Old French as well, where junc was a type of native reed (the reeds were fiberous enough to possibly be made into ropes and other things). In sailor terms, junk was used to describe a lot. Salt junk became a popular term for the meat that sailors ate while away at sea. The preserved meat they ate was like beef jerky, and salt junk described how tough it was, just like the junk ropes they used to repair their ships. It's the first time we see junk used in a negative way. The sailors would rather eat a sirloin steak, of course, but if they were at sea they were stuck eating the salt junk.
By the early-1800's, the American settlers were using junk not just to describe old rope, but anything that was old/needed to be thrown out. In a journal entry, one man describes "junking" lumber, stripping it down for firewood and getting rid of the excess.

https://preview.redd.it/4wav685sw5051.jpg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0848c605d40a7e3f71ddd12c25a02d59cf00de32
Fast forward to the Prohibition Era. American gangsters had enormous power in the smuggling/trafficking of drugs and alcohol since people couldn't purchase them legally. It's unclear exactly how junk came to describe opiates, but the term was popularized with morphine and heroin users.
From there, junkie emerged shortly after. There's a theory that junkie is because addicts were stealing scrap metal (junk) to fund their habit, but there isn't a lot of evidence this was the case. In fact, we had a lot less scrap metal in the Prohibition Era than we do today, since it was reused in future building projects. The stereotype of drug addicts selling copper wire or other scrap materials probably came about later.
It's also interesting to note that the "-ie" ending in junkie is what we call a "diminutive possessive". Big words, but it basically means if you have an object, adding -ie or -y is a Dutch ending that describes the person who has a relationship to/owns the object. It's used it to show affection, like a familial relationship. For instance, a babe became a baby, a pup became a puppy, and a mama became a mommy.
So while junkhead or junker meant someone who literally "used junk", the word we use (junkie) seems to indicate someone who literally "loves junk". I love junk, how about you guys?
It's also important to understand that junk really means something different from trash. For instance, we have junk sales (or "rummage sales") in the United States, but we don't have trash sales. Trash and garbage are words used to describe things that are rotten, expired, absolutely no good anymore. Junk, on the other hand, is something that is just in disuse, but the idea is that it can be repurposed and reused again. So maybe junkies aren't trash after all, but people who can be repurposed into something even better someday. Just a thought.

Addiction: The physical or psychological inability to stop consuming a substance despite negative consequences

Addiction in terms of drug use came about in the early 1900's. Again, it was first used in the context of morphine. Not long after, an addict came to mean someone who was addicted to a certain drug or behavior. The word itself is very old and has an extremely confusing history. Richard J Rosenthal investigated the whole thing to an amazing extent in his piece for the Journal of Addiction Research & Theory in 2018. He's way headier than I am, so I'll just let him tell you about it.

Addictio, the abstract noun derived from the verb, was the technical Latin term for the judicial act by which a debtor was made the slave of his creditor.
The sentence was pronounced, or spoken, by the judge, or praetor, according to the ancient law of the Twelve Tables. Where exactly did this leave the addictus, which in the passive form referred to the hapless individual who was physically handed over to his creditor by the praetor’s authority and physically led off in chains, to be held for sixty days or until the debt was paid? Failure to pay the debt after the lapse of the statutory sixty days rendered the debtor his creditor’s permanent property. He could then, at the creditor’s discretion, be kept, killed or sold as a common slave.
For the Romans, enslavement became increasingly associated with the passive forms of addicere, which of necessity would take on a very different connotation from the active form. To understand this, one must appreciate the distinction Romans made between active and passive forms of the verb, and in fact between active and passive in all forms of behavior. To be the recipient, to be acted upon, was to be less than. A passive human subject was a defeated individual, the object of someone else’s power. Being sentenced to be another person’s slave would be particularly humiliating. It would mean not only the loss of one’s citizenship but of one’s personhood.
The theme continued to be developed well into the imperial period. The most striking aspect of the use of addicere in each of these instances is the idea of bondage or enslavement. However, the object of that enslavement had evolved over the course of six centuries. What started as literal, the fate of the debt bondsman (addictus) under the ancient Law of the Twelve Tables, became metaphorical. One could become enslaved by vice (e.g., gambling, drinking, gluttony). A behavior like gambling, which previously might have led to one’s being sentenced into slavery, now was the enslavement.
The English verb ‘addict’ found particular resonance among the early church reformers. It’s earliest known appearance in English was in a tract by the Protestant reformer John Frith. It involves the act of choosing between two or more things. He apparently understood it as ‘preference’ or ‘choice,’ meaning (in a Christian context) the individual’s preference for a particular doctrine or interpretation of the Bible. [The Church] emphasized the dangers associated with a mistaken choice (Catholicism, the Pope, icons and idols). Most prominent was the danger of grievously offending God or of being led down the wrong path away from God. The Reformers extended their concerns to the physical realm, where one could be addicted to physical pleasures like gluttony and drunkenness.
Such ‘choices’ need not be actively chosen, however. The most influential of the Protestant Reformers next to Luther, John Calvin, [believed] man was so corrupted and enslaved by sin that he was incapable of choosing correctly. It was only through God’s grace that one was turned away from depravity and bad choices. An accomplished Latinist and writing in Latin, Calvin drew upon the legal, rather than the augural, usage of the Latin verb addicere to indicate that it is something done to or for one; it is not voluntary or within one’s control. This would be in line with the early legal meaning of addictio in Latin, where one did not act freely but was acted upon by the law [and] made the slave of one’s creditor.
[Writers from the 16th century on] were using medical metaphors to convey the seriousness of the problem, and we can't help noting that the language of disease was used both for the individual and for society. Furthermore, it was not addiction itself that was the disease, it was drunkenness or gambling, and when they referred to addiction, it was to convey ‘attachment’ or ‘preference.’
When the word addiction was deliberately omitted from four consecutive editions of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, it was because it was considered pejorative, stigmatizing, and too difficult to define. There were simply ‘too many meanings’ the term lacked any ‘universally agreed upon definition’: the result of using it was ‘conceptual chaos’.
Inclusion in DSM-5 represents behavioral addiction’s first official recognition as a diagnostic entity. It is therefore especially notable that, in addition to the lack of a definition, there are neither criteria nor guidelines for the assessment of potential disorders.

...like...wtf. For sure.

https://preview.redd.it/y6bd7ty4x5051.jpg?width=355&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9bfdf0cdf570f580511f87254a4ddecf8178d9eb
Can we all just take a minute to remember that this song existed though? God, 2008 was a simpler time. (If you wanna get hit over the head with a brick from the past, I encourage you to listen to Paralyzer or Disturbia again, just sayin)
Then we end the root with -er, which is for "connected with, pertaining to; the man engaged in". That comes from the old Latin -arius and -arium, which is the same reason an aria is an opera solo. So I mean, referring to tweakers in general as tweakarium and a tweaker as a tweakarius is valid (probably not, but it sounds cool).

Tweak (also tweaking/tweaked/twacked/tweaker): Under the influence of methamphetamine

We can trace tweak through history fairly well. It starts with the Proto-Indo-European word \dwoh,* meaning "two".
[Side note: We currently can't trace words farther back than Proto-Indo-European (PIE) or any "Proto" language. There's no written record of PIE, and we really can't prove it was a language at all. Linguists compare words from newer languages that are alike in sound and meaning, and from there, group them into the "families" of Proto languages. PIE may have originated as early as 3300 BCE, which is old as shit (like before people were using wheels and domesticating horses). PIE is the most influential Proto language and has been studied the most, since English, Portugese, Russian, Italian, Punjabi, Urdu, Bengali, German, Spanish, Dutch, Danish, and many others have all originated from PIE]
From there, \dwoh* was found in Old Armenian with կից, meaning "a cross-road" and in Old English as tweo, meaning "two".
Both of these words created the Old English tweag later on, meaning "trouble, doubt, distress". It makes sense when you consider how someone at a "cross-roads" is faced with a tough decision, because they could go in one of two directions. In Old English, tweo became tweonleoht, which is where we get "twilight" from. It literally means "two-light", as in the part of the day when it's night and day at the same time.
Tweag became twikken, which has multiple meanings: trouble/doubt, plucking/pulling something, and twitch. All of these definitions are loosely connected to tweag with the idea that there is some type of problem (distress) that needs to be fixed. If you had a thorn in your foot, you might be distressed and pluck/pull it out. If you had an illness or were fearful (distress), you might twitch, and so on.

https://preview.redd.it/xwjbqcist5051.png?width=266&format=png&auto=webp&s=459a3cb975620c6611aefdfe424aa08b887fe7f0
This was the definition until the 1980's, when tweak came to mean "a fine adjustment". For example, resetting a spring inside a clock would be a "tweak", but completely renovating your house would not, since it's a big project/adjustment. From there, we got tweaker, which is an interesting phrase because it only applies to methamphetamine (and rarely other stimulants), instead of all drugs. This meaning traces itself back to twitch, and a tweaker is someone who is constantly twitching/super high/sporadic and uncoordinated because of using meth. Nervousness/paranoia are also described with this definition.
The -er root, again, gives the word a literal meaning of "someone who twitches".
Personally, I like the "minor adjustments" definition. Like, "Nah bro I'm not tweaking, just making minor adjustments to my neurochemicals, thank you".

Crank: crystal methamphetamine

At least where I live, crank is quickly becoming an outdated/obsolete term. I don't know of anyone personally who refers to meth as crank - my guess is that in the next couple of decades it will fall out of use in this context unless a particular area or community hangs onto it. That being said, it has been widely used as a way to describe meth for 50 years, and it started in an interesting way.

https://preview.redd.it/38kbht71z5051.jpg?width=1694&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a4007f4639938d77bdd0e5649d39b5a0b3c7d4cf
In the Proto-Germanic language, \krank* was "to bend or curl up". This is also the origin of cringe, experiencing something so uncomfortable that you physically curl away. \krank* became crincan, "to bend or yield". This turned into cranc, which was used in Old-Middle Engilsh as crincan "to weave", crencestre "a spinster (woman who weaves)", and crankstaef, "a weaver's instrument (a loom)".
In the 16th century, the definition was generalized and used in other things, always meaning "to twist or bend" in some way. In the 1590's, we see records of crank meaning "the twists and turns of speech" (imagine how the stereotypical politician never gives a straight answer, "talking around" the question to avoid saying something that might sound bad). In 1848, crank was used to describe "an unreasonable act" (something that would be done by a person with twisted judgement. Even today, if we see a person behaving in a particularly cruel or cold manner, we might say that they have a "twisted mind").
By 1834, crank had become a tool. This hearkens back to the days of weaving, since a crankstaef was a piece of the loom that helped the wheel spin. By 1908, the rate of automobile manufacture was increasing. Building cars required the use of a crank, and it was around this time that crank also described the action of "turning a crank". In this way, it's quite possible to crank a crank, but you can also crank a dial, crank a lever, etc.

https://i.redd.it/r8y9s5amt5051.gif
It's a little unclear how crank came to be used as a word for meth, but the most probable theory comes from the Hell's Angels and similar motorcycle gangs that have been active in the U.S since the 1940's. In the 1970's, the U.S outlawed methamphetamine due to the increase of people abusing the drugs. It was around this time that the motorcycle gangs controlled a majority of production and distribution, usually to rural areas. Bikers used their bikes, of course, to transport and distribute the drug, sometimes concealing it in the crankshafts of their motorcycles. The theory is that this method of crankshaft transport lent meth the street name crank.
The only thing I question is how much meth you could realistically fit in the crankshaft of a motorcycle. If you've ever seen the crankshaft of a bike, they're really not that big. Plus, they get pretty hot, which would be a little problematic. That being said, motorcycle gangs were known for customizing and adding to their bikes for a variety of different reasons. They were usually expert mechanics who could customize their bikes to be faster, more durable, and go longer distances. So I suppose there's a hundred ways, in theory, that you could increase the available space in your crankshaft and keep it from getting too hot.

Gacked: Extremely high on a stimulant (mostly used in the context of meth), usually to the point of being incapacitated or uncomfortable. Stupid high.

Gacked is one of those expressions that has varied use depending on the community. When I lived on the West Coast, gacked was used quite often, then I moved to the Midwest and hardly encountered the phrase at all. Just my experience, not sure if it holds any water.
Anyways, gacked is a product of geeked, "to be filled with excitement or enthusiasm". You can be geeked over a new video game or makeup palette. Geeked for Christmas, geeked for the weekend, geeked to get your dick sucked. Whatever.

https://preview.redd.it/60d9eiply5051.jpg?width=448&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=33b2bb684983dbd311f22135ef2d98383cde4213
We usually use geek to describe someone who's very enthusiastic about a particular subject. While being a nerd requires extensive knowledge on a subject, being a geek requires only enthusiasm. We find geck in Scandinavian and Germanic languages in the 15th century. Geck was "to croak, cackle, or mock". By the early 16th century, geck was used to describe a person, "a fool or simpleton".
Fast-forward to the 1940's, when traveling circuses and freak shows were a big deal. The freak show performers came to be known as geeks - the public saw them as eccentric simpletons, entertaining but not smart enough to cope for themselves or be considered legitimate members of society.

https://preview.redd.it/u9rs1rb4w5051.jpg?width=265&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=44f0087519018f5714c8cd0af0bfffa2be886c72

In the 1980's, college kids began to use geek to describe their fellow classmates who were socially inept and obsessed with the computers and technology that were rapidly developing. By the 90's, we could say that someone was geeking out or geeked out if they were ignoring opportunities to socialize/have sex/etc. in favor of obsessing over tech gadgets.This explains how geeked became connected with stimulants. When you're geeked, you might show signs of social ineptness, like talking way too much, not being able to hold a normal conversation, displaying odd and erratic behaviors, or expressing ideas that seem strange and inexplicable.
I think the connection to hyper-focusing is interesting as well. In the 80's, a geek was obsessed with computers to the point where they took notice of nothing else (other people/other responsibilities /other hobbies etc.) Stim users, of course, can show this same intense and unwavering obsession, which may have strengthen the linguistic connection between geeks and meth users.
Gacked may have been a natural evolution to distinguish "meth geeked" from "geeked about other stuff", but some people believe gacked evolved from geeked because of the way you can throw up/get nauseous if you overdose on stimulants. If you were insanely high, you might vomit (or gack), and would be gacked as a result.

-- K imma end it there for right now because I'm tired of looking at this etymology dictionary. You learned something today, bitch! Yayyyy. Proud of u. Go forth with your new and probably-useless knowledge, tweakarius.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!
Introduction
Its the month of June, and this year is the 33rd anniversary of Operation Bluestar, when the Indian Government, under Indira Gandhi, unjustifiably invaded Siri Harmandir Sahib, the Golden Temple, and killed innocent people, damaged Siri Harmandir Sahib, burned the Sikh Reference Library, and stole priceless Sikh artifacts. Its that time of year again when we mourn our losses, reflect on the past, address the present, and plan for the future.
This post is aimed at clearing up the Myths & Misconceptions about 1984. It's important to clear up misinformation because the Indian Propaganda machine is very large, and has brainwashed a lot of people, especially Sikhs. This isnt black & white, but is rather very complicated. No one side is perfect, and both have blood on their hands (one far more than the other), however it's an undoubtable fact that the Indian Government under Indira Gandhi was overall responsible for what happened, and anyone who doubts this is either trolling, bias, or intellectually deficient.
We must remain eternally vigilant, as the enemies of the panth are everywhere, especially on the Internet. During this month's 1984 posts, as always, if you encounter any trolls please report them immediately. When getting into debates, please be respectful and attack the argument, not the individual, and please for the love of Waheguru, do not say anything stupid or endorse violence.
These trolls want to trigger us on purpose, and create a controversy. They will literally say retarded stuff just to get a reaction out of us, and then when we do, they will use it to their advantage to show how immature we are and probably put the screenshots on some right wing Indian news site. The Mods are on standby and will take action against any and all who breach the Reddit Rehat Maryada. You have been warned.
I would also like to acknowledge that this post is not all of my own work, and a lot of parts are taken from other sources that will be referenced down below. With that being said, here are the Myths & Misconceptions about 1984:
"The Attack was a Last Resort"
The army had been preparing for the attack at least 18 months prior to June 1984 when Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale had not even moved within the Darbar Sahib complex.
"Retired Lt-General S.K Sinha, a directly involved and high-ranking army leader of the time, reported in the Spokesman newspaper:

The army action was not a last resort as Prime Minister Indira Gandhi would have us believe. It had been in her mind for more than 18 months. The army had begun rehearsals of a commando attack near Chakrata Cantonment in the Doon Valley, where a complete replica of the Golden Temple complex had been built.[14] (bold ours)

General S. K. Sinha further states in the same interview that towards the end of 1981, he received a call from someone in Delhi informing him of the government’s decision to attack Darbar Sahib.[15] This makes it clear that the decision to attack Darbar Sahib had been made at least two and a half years prior to execution and its preparations had begun more than 18 months prior.
General S. K. Sinha openly admits that he had advised Indira Gandhi against the operation[16]. For this, he had to pay the heavy price of forced retirement, upon which he was superseded by Indira Gandhi’s personally appointed General A.S. Vaidya who was then instructed with planning and leading Operation Blue Star.
According to a British correspondent of the 'Sunday Times’, London the attack had been planned for months in advance with the advice from British agencies.

A British correspondent of the 'Sunday Times’, London, noted: “Last week’s assault on the Golden Temple took place after months of preparation of the Indian army, which included advice from British experts in counter-insurgency. Sources in Delhi say that two officers of the Indian secret service, Gary Saxena and R.N. Kay, of the Research and Analysis Wing made several trips to London to seek expertise. The Indian Government then selected 600 men from different units and sent them to rehearse the assault on a life size replica of the Golden Temple, built at a secret training camp in the Chakrata Hills, about 150 miles north of Delhi. The assault troops were alerted to invade the Temple no fewer than five times during the past three months, but each time Mrs. Gandhi vetoed the invasion.[17]

How can the violent military strike be defensible on the grounds that militants were present in the temple when all the facts, including statements from high-ranking Indian Army officials, show that an attack was being planned since 1981? At this moment in time, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale or other so-called militants were not even inside the complex. In view of military preparations, no honest and true Sikh would sit around unprepared to let an enemy attack his holy place. When someone knows that his house will be attacked, he makes adequate preparations to defend it. No devout Sikh would ever tolerate or allow a military action against the very heart of Sikhi. It is an attack on the dignity, honor and prestige of the Sikhs.
According to many eyewitnesses no announcement was ever made by the army and the army also did not take any effective measure to safeguards innocent pilgrims.[23] Bhan Singh, Secretary of the SGPC who was trapped inside and was one of the survivors said:

Had the army given a warning, at least those pilgrims who had come for the Gurpurb could go out and then those persons who were simply here to participate in the Dharam Youdh Morcha could go out. But no warning was given to the people. The firing was started from all around the complex with vengeance, as if they were attacking an alien, enemy country.[24]

This makes it abundantly clear that the Indian army without giving any warning began the assault with scores of heavy artillery shells being blasted into the holy shrine. This raises serious concerns over the army’s actions in contrast to how other governments have dealt with similar situations. The Indian Government was hell-bent on the attack and preferred a conflict rather than diplomacy. Hence, the attack was by no means a last resort.
The last and most important question remains unanswered by the government proponents is to why the government chose the martyrdom day of Guru Arjan Dev Ji, one of the most venerated holy days, as the day of the attack when thousands of Sikh pilgrims visit the holy place from Punjab as well as abroad. According to Brar, the army was ordered to move in as soon as possible otherwise it would have been too late and even harder to bring the situation under control.[25] Brar tries to give the impression that the attack was an impromptu rather than the meticulously planned and deliberated operation it was; schemed and drilled months and years in advance.
Brar’s lies and irrationality cannot explain why the government could not wait for few more days seeing as the army had already occupied the complex surroundings months earlier. His lies stand exposed in the writings of Kuldip Nayar, an Indian journalist and a member of Punjab group in 1984, who reveals that Kuldip Brar told him having received orders from the Indian government to undertake the operation 2 weeks before it actually took place.[26]
Indira Gandhi tries to give the similar impression during her television speech delivered on June 2, 1984 by saying “Don’t shed blood, shed hatred”.[27] But neither she nor any of her accomplices ever presented any evidence to prove that Jarnail Singh or Sikhs for that matter were shedding blood. It is ridiculous to make pretenses of peace and then launch a premeditated large scale army action the very next day. It is not plausible to think that the Indian government prepared for an assault of such magnitude by deploying hundreds of thousands of army men equipped with heavy artillery and tanks without even any rehearsal all within 24 hours.
The government could have conveniently chosen any other day to minimize the casualties. Instead, the army let thousands of Sikhs assemble at the holy place and then imposed curfew leaving them trapped inside to be killed in the crossfire. Dr. A. R. Darshi[28] affirms our viewpoint by stating:

The day of attack, 3rd June 1984, which was being observed as martyrdom day of Guru Arjan Dev Ji, was intentionally chosen by Indira Gandhi and her Hindu government mainly for two reasons. Firstly, she wanted to show indignity to the religious heritage of the Sikhs and challenge their faith. Secondly, she wanted to entrap and massacre as many Sikhs as possible because they had assembled there in large numbers.[29]

All of these points prove that the attack was planned ahead and its day and time were deliberately chosen to try and give a crushing blow to the Sikh spirit."
Source
"Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was an Extremist"
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was not an "Extremist", he was actually following Sikhi, unlike most Sikhs who condemn him. Bhindranwale led a revolution to awaken the Sikh spirit. He was even titled "Greatest Sikh of the 20th Century" by the Akal Takht, and is a role model to many Sikhs.
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale didnt just wake up one day and decide to fight, he started from a very young age. He started off as a Pracharak (preacher), and traveled spreading the message of Sikhi. He urged Sikhs to free themselves of drugs, alcohol, pornography, etc, which were affecting the Sikh community.
Before he picked up the Gun, he picked up the Gutka, and inspired others to do the same. To call Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was an "Extremist" would be to disregard the core teachings of Sikhi.
"Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale Hated Hindus"
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale did not hate Hindus. This is a misconception that is caused by taking one of his speeches out of context, and ignoring all the other relations he had with Hindus.
If he truly hated Hindus, then why did he go out of his way to help them? Why did he have an interview with a Hindu sant? Why did he take in a Hindu Girl as his own daughter? The accusation that Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale "Hated" Hindus makes no sense, and is from a cherry picked example of an out of context speech, that ignores all the other relations he had with the Hindu community.
In one of his speeches, Bhindranwale said that he demanded the release of all the innocent Sikhs who were arrested on false charges, or else he threatened to kill 5000 Hindus. Bhindranwale said this because he wanted to make a point about how the Indian Government prioritized the lives of Hindus over Sikhs, covered them more in the media, and so on. He acknowledged some people were upset that a "Sant" used this language, to which he said he never asked anyone to call him a Sant. Bhindranwale did not actually kill any Hindus, and the statement he made was a pretty obvious bluff used to demonstrate a point, and it actually worked.
"Jarnail Singh did not hate Hindus. He addressed this point in his famous speech “I do not hate Hindus” in which he narrates many examples of him helping the Hindus. We only give the summary points of the speech defending his stance.

He rescued a daughter of a Hindu named Hukam Chand from Jalalabad.
He gave 500 rupees to Kailash Chandar to get him back on his feet after his shop was caught on fire and destroyed.
In Kapurthala, a copy of Ramayana (Hindu holy book) was burnt. He spent 5000 rupees on litigation to get the culprits punished.
In April 1983, two Hindus died during “Stop the Traffic” campaign. He gave 5000 rupees to each of the families.

Complete details of the above four examples can be found in his speeches. This proves that he had no enmity for the Hindus otherwise he would not have offered any help to them. These statements are from 20 September, 1983. Many of his other passages refuting this myth can be found in his speeches. Now, let us discuss the speech about threatening to kill 5000 Hindus. The intent of this statement can only be well understood given its proper context, background and the circumstance.
When the peaceful struggle was in full force and at its zenith, the government started to deal more aggressively with the Sikhs. About 200 Sikhs became martyrs. Many were crippled in jail due to extensive tortures. Some were tortured to death. Gurdwaras were destroyed and Gurbani Pothis (Sikh Holy Scriptures) were desecrated and burnt. Despite numerous appeals to the government, the perpetrators were never arrested. The police took no action and no case was ever registered. Then a Sikh donated a jeep worth 80,000 rupees which the government confiscated with no reason or justification. Five Sikhs Jagir Singh, Mangal Singh, Ajaib Singh, Amrik Singh and Thara Singh from the group of Jarnail Singh were arrested without any charge or allegation of crime. Then the Sikh community collected 300,000 rupees and bought a bus for the group of Jarnail Singh for preaching tours all over India. This bus was sent along with some Sikhs to bring Mata Labh Kaur (the old aged mother of Kartar Singh, mentor of Jarnail Singh). This bus was confiscated and all the Sikhs arrested without any reason. The police showed no care for the elderly mother and treated her badly. Jarnail Singh made an appeal to release the innocent Sikhs but it was ignored by the government officials thinking that the Sikhs will eventually quiet down. However, they did not realize that their maltreatment had reached an unbearable extent and Sikhs would not tolerate the arrest and maltreatment of their respected women. As a last resort, Jarnail Singh issued a statement that if the bus along with all the passengers were not released by 5p.m. he will kill 5,000 Hindus in one hour. As a result the government complied and all Sikhs were released.
It is clear from the above that the statement was issued as a last resort to get the government to listen and be fair. The most obvious fact that is ignored by most people is that the government not only acted quickly but also complied with the Sikh demand upon receiving the threat. When hundreds of Sikhs were killed, thousands arrested and desecration of Sikh scriptures had happened numerous times, the government remained inactive but as soon as the word ‘Hindu’ was mentioned the government woke from its slumber to protect the Hindu majority. The question here is not why the statement was issued but why the government remained quiet in case of Sikhs but became active for the Hindus. This shows government’s bias, partial and discriminatory behavior towards the Sikh community. There was no justice for the Sikhs from the government who only worked to appease the majority Hindus. The most glaring fact staring us in the face is that the government loved Hindus while showing no care to the religious sentiments of the Sikhs. On the one hand, the government and the Hindu majority raise a hue and cry over Sikhs being part of the Hindus and on the other attribute titles of “terrorists”, “extremists” and “dangerous” only to the Sikhs. Such bigotry can only stem from racial discrimination.
Hindus usually reason that those 5,000 Hindus were innocent and the statement itself points towards terrorism. We respond that hundreds of Sikhs who were tortured to death were equally innocent. Thousands of Sikh pilgrims who died during the Operation Blue Star attack and Sikhs killed in fake encounters were also innocent. Thousands of Sikhs massacred in November 1984 were equally innocent. What was their fault? They were killed for being Sikhs. If this is a just reason then Jarnail Singh’s statement was on the same line that he would target Hindus for being Hindus. This was no different than the government’s policy. The difference being that the government was inflicted with intolerance, prejudice and discrimination while Jarnail Singh was driven with the motive of securing equal rights. Further, he only issued the statement and did not act on it. He did not kill a single Hindu. On the other hand, the Indian government is responsible for killing thousands of Sikhs. Hindus killed many Sikhs in neighboring states and raped Sikh women. Any logical and sane person would agree that the real terrorist is the one who actually commits terrorism as opposed to the one who merely makes a verbal claim; that also only as an idle threat used as negotiation. Hence, the one who acts is a greater terrorist than the one who only issues a statement. This makes Hindus and the Indian government real terrorists not the Sikhs.
The law should be applied to all equally. This is the only way for different communities to coexist in peace and harmony. It is ironic that the government agents label Jarnail Singh as a terrorist but make no mention of atrocities and mass killings committed by the government agencies and the general Hindu public. It is not fair press when a Sikh is called a terrorist for issuing a statement but all Hindu leaders and fascist groups are considered ‘patriots’ for threatening to kill Sikhs. Such reporters and writers have sold their conscience, soul and pen and surrendered their will to the government for writing against the Sikhs. It was a case of survival of 5,000 Hindus versus the entire Sikh nation. Jarnail Singh did not kill a single Hindu but the government launched a full scale attack with its full machinery to try and eliminate the entire Sikh nation and crush its free spirit. Therefore, the government was the real terrorist not Jarnail Singh."
Source
"Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale took over a sacred site, kept Weapons, and turned it into a Military base"
The Akal Takht is one of the 5 seats of temporal power in Sikhi. It was founded by the 6th Guru, Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji, and was established as a symbol of political sovereignty, military command, and where temporal concerns of the Sikh people could be addressed. The Akal Takht was also a staging ground for the "Akal Sena", the army of God. The Akal Takht itself was used as a "Military Base" by the Guru himself.

"The tradition of arming the Sikhs was introduced by Guru Hargobind Ji…He then instructed the Sikhs to offer him weapons and horses instead of money. He accepted weapons and horses at Akal Takhat Sahib from His followers…..Sant Bhindranwale simply revived this tradition in letter and spirit and gave it a new dimension by substituting revolvers and guns with swords and spears and motor cycle with horse. He therefore did not commit any offense by following the Gurus. The cynics may criticize him for revival of the age old tradition of the Khalsa.[48]" - Dr. A. R. Darshi , Darshi, p. 53

Given the purpose and history of the Akal Takht, as well as the martial tradition of Sikhi, it's no surprise that weapons were kept. I would argue that it would be going against Sikh principles to not keep weapons and defend such a site. Often times when people think of holy sites, they think of them as purely spiritual, however in Sikhi we have the concept of "Miri-Piri", and mix the spiritual and temporal. There has allways been a historical precedence to keep weapons in the Darbar Sahib Complex, and that Sikhs follow a militaristic lifestyle that was set by the Guru himself.
"When all other means have failed, it is righteous to draw the sword" - Zafarnama by Guru Gobind Singh Ji
"Arrest of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was not an option"
"There is no record of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale being arrested under any terrorist laws of Indian Constitution nor charged for any violent or criminal activity. Anytime he was arrested on false charges, the government had to release him for lack of evidence and witnesses against him.
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, the army’s main target had been arrested and was in government custody months before the attack. How could the attack be warranted on the grounds that the government had to arrest Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale when he was already in their custody months before, and was released by the Indian Government without any charges? At the time of his arrest he was carrying weapons. Why was he then released? At one time when the police made an announcement to arrest him, he peacefully complied and presented himself along with his 50 companions to the Deputy Commissioner. Surely, he would have presented himself in the same manner had another warrant been released. Even if we assume that such a warrant was released, there is no evidence to suggest that Jarnail Singh refused to present himself. Additionally, the government failed to approach Sikh leaders or seek help of Sikh organizations to convince Jarnail Singh to present himself. The SGPC (Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee) management of Darbar Sahib desperately asked the government on a number of occasions to produce a list of people they wanted to capture so that the management could take action and prevent any army intervention. However the Indian authorities refused and failed to do this despite it being an option to prevent an assault.
Furthermore Jarnail Singh and his companions did not remain within the Darbar Sahib complex 24 hours a day, but freely traveled Punjab and the surrounding areas on a daily basis. He was easily accessible by press reporters and journalists. If these people needed to be captured why did the army with all its weapons of destruction enter the Darbar Sahib killing innocent worshippers caught in the crossfire, when they could have easily assassinated or arrested Jarnail Singh and his associates at any time outside the temple complex? Also, Jarnail Singh was not charged with crimes or terrorist activities nor did he have an outstanding arrest warrant from which he was hiding or attempting to abscond. India Today reported in December 1983 that a senior officer in Chandigarh confessed:

"It's really shocking that we have so little against him while we keep blaming him for all sorts of things.[1]"

Furthermore, Gurdev Singh, District Commissioner at Amritsar until shortly before the invasion is on record as having assured the Governor of the State that he could arrest anyone in Darbar Sahib at any time.[2] He made repeated pleas to the government not to take any adverse army action against Darbar Sahib but alas, no one paid attention to his requests.[3]"
Source
"The Attack was executed to only capture & kill the Sikh Militants, and damage to the holy site and Civilian casualty were minimized"
When it comes to how the attack was carried out and the events that occurred before and after the attack it leaves no doubt that the attack was not against the terrorists but it was an attack executed by terrorists.
First and foremost, while Indira Gandhi was delivering her speech of keeping peace and seeking peaceful methods of negotiation,[30] the army had been given the order to execute the operation. As mentioned earlier, a curfew was imposed on the whole of Punjab. G. S. Dhillon gives us a clear picture of the Punjab situation at the time:

"The whole administration of the State along with the railways and other transportation services including the postal and telecommunications were carried on or suspended, to suit the needs of the armed forces. The State police service virtually ceased to exist as massive purge operation went on and its various functions were taken over by the army personnel i.e. such functions as frisking, searching and arresting people, performing security duties, regulating movement of transport and men, guarding railway tracks, canals etc. and other installations of public utility. Thus on June 2, the army took over the administration, and whatever vestiges of a civilised government had remained vanished.[31]"

Electricity and phone lines were cut off, disconnecting Punjab from the rest of the world. The propaganda ministers (government reporters) have no answer as to why the entire Punjab was sealed off when the so-called terrorists were only “hiding” inside the Darbar Sahib complex.[32] All of the reporters were escorted out so that no unbiased coverage of the operation could be published or aired.[33] Only government paid reporters were allowed to remain behind in Punjab so that the government could have full control over the media reporting and the only story coming out of such coverage could be the official story covered in lies, propaganda and deceit. Gurdarshan Singh Dhillon corroborates:

"News censorship was ordered for a period of two months. All the foreign journalists were rounded up and expelled from the State under military escort so much so that all the leading newspapers of the State had to suspend publication for three days. All war time emergency measures were brought into force. Life came to a standstill. The telephone connections of the Complex were disconnected on June 2 and the water and electricity supply were cut off on June 3.[34]"

If the government had been honest and true to its own shambolic public statements, it would have allowed the media to freely cover the events as they took place and report the actual facts. This would have proved the government to be honest in its decisions and true to its word and deed. Instead, to the contrary, no free press was allowed and attempts were made to make the official story the only story.
Furthermore, the government’s theories do not hold to the rationality and logic when confronted with the question of why thousands of army troopers equipped with heavy artillery, machinery and tanks were sent to counter only a handful of Sikhs carrying obsolete weapons. The modern weaponry used by the army was intended to be put to use during a war with another country. It is absolutely astonishing that the government used its army, CRP (Central Reserve Police) and BSF to attack its own citizens who were no threat to national security nor had any demand to separate from the Indian Union.
During the operation, tens of other Sikh Gurdwaras all over Punjab were also attacked in the same manner when there were no so-called terrorists hiding in them. On the one hand the government and the Hindu majority consider Sikhs as Hindus but on the other hand, they attacked the Sikh Gurdwaras considering them as a separate group, as terrorists and a threat to national security. There is not a single record of Indian military being used to attack any of the Hindu temples or to subdue any Hindu terrorist groups. This simply points out the sectarian mindset of the Indian government. Thousands of Sikhs were killed during the operation. Pilgrims were locked up in the rooms and then set on fire. Many were forced to starve to death. Others were forced to lie on the hot floor of the parikarma (surrounding walkway; made of marble that gets extremely hot in summer sunshine). Sikhs were beaten, abused and maltreated. Their hands were tied behind their backs with their own turbans. Women were raped. Infants were grabbed from the bosoms of their mothers and thrown against the walls or into the sarovar (nectar pool). According to one eyewitness Sikh, the army threw grenades on the pilgrims resulting in many casualties and deaths. This Sikh’s infant son’s head was blown off while sitting in his mother’s lap and then his wife was shot dead by the army.[35] Sikhs were lined up and shot dead in cold blood. The cold-blooded genocide of men, women and children in the temple is expressed in independent reports below:

"A doctor drafted in by the army to conduct examinations, reported how “Sikhs had been shot at point blank range with their hands tied behind their backs with their turbans. It was a virtual massacre with a large number of woman, children and pilgrims being gunned down”.[36]"
"On Sunday, Medical workers in Amritsar said Soldiers had threatened to shoot them if they gave food or water to dying Sikh pilgrims wounded in the assault lying in the hospital.[37]"
"On 4th June, when thousands of Sikhs had gathered at the Golden Temple, army tanks moved into the Temple complex, smashing into the sanctum sanctorum and shooting everyone in sight. Many wounded were left to bleed to death and when they begged for water soldiers told them to drink the mixture of blood and urine on the floor.[38]"

Had the true motive behind the army action been to capture or kill militants inside the holy place, thousands of innocent Sikhs would not have been killed. Additionally, the army fortified the holy place for months after the attack when it should have handed back the control as soon as the operation was complete. During the army’s occupation, the holy place was desecrated in the worst possible ways that caused the historical accounts of the defilements carried out by the Mughal and Afghan raiders to pale in comparison. The army smoked and drank alcohol inside. The army kept their shoes on and turned the holy place into their base station. Thousands of Sikhs were taken as prisoners of war and put in jails without any charge or trial. Many of these prisoners are still languishing in jails. Even children as young as four years old were arrested.[39]
The Sikh Reference Library housing irreplaceable hand-written manuscripts and the official edicts of the Gurus, history books and Sikh relics were destroyed or confiscated by the army never to be seen again. Archives of documents from every period of Sikh history and artifacts from the lives of the Gurus were taken away or destroyed by army troops. The entire city was looted and houses of Sikhs were ransacked from where valuable items were stolen and taken away by the army. These facts point to one clear fact that the army action was not against few “terrorists” but against the entire Sikh nation and it was a futile attempt to destroy the Sikhs and deal with the “Sikh problem” once and for all. In the words of Joyce Pettigrew:

"The army went into Darbar Sahib not to eliminate a political figure or a political movement but to suppress the culture of a people, to attack their heart, to strike a blow at their spirit and self-confidence.[40]"

Therefore, it was not an attack to free the holy place from supposed terrorists but it was itself a state sponsored act of terrorism against the Sikh religion. The army was the real culprit behind terrorism and it was a calculated use of extreme violence and terror by the government to inculcate fear in the minds of the Sikhs so that never again do they dare raise their voice against the oppression, injustice and tyranny of the Indian government. Hence, the Sikhs were the true defenders against the Indian terrorists.
The government proponents also put forward another excuse that they did not attack Harmandir Sahib (Golden Temple) and only targeted the Akal Takht building that was being used as the hiding place by the Sikhs. However, this is completely false. It is foolish to assume that the Sikhs care about one Gurdwara more than the other. All Gurdwaras are equally important to the Sikhs. Akal Takhat Sahib was founded and built by the sixth Guru himself and stands for the symbol of political sovereignty of the Sikhs. It is the highest decision making authority on religious and temporal matter of the Sikhs. An attack on this pontificate is a clear indication of the Indian government attempting to destroy the sovereignty of the Sikhs and enslave them into obeying the majority Hindu decisions. Further, other buildings did not remain unaffected. The building of Harmandir Sahib received more than 250 bullet holes that were counted by Dr. A. R. Darshi himself. Many Sikhs performing religious services were killed on the spot. Akhand Paaths (continuous reading of the Holy Scripture) were interrupted and the daily ceremonies could not be performed. The sarovar (nectar pool) was filled with debris, dead bodies and blood. The blood had seeped into the floor, so much so, that the smell of corpses remained for months after the attack. As a result, the gold plates and the entire marble needed to be replaced. The entire complex had to be renovated. The government agents forget the fact that an attack on one Gurdwara is considered an attack on the entire Sikh nation. Harmandir Sahib and Akal Takhat Sahib are integral to the Sikh way of life and standing symbols of Sikh sovereignty, uniqueness and distinct identity. The attack was an attempt to destroy the Sikh religion altogether but such attempts will always fail as they have in the past."
Source
"Sikhs were demanding a Separate Sikh State"
As if demanding a Sikh state was a bad thing in the first place, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale did not openly advocate for the creation of a separate Sikh state. He said "Sikh ik vakhri qaum hai" ("Sikhs are a distinct nation"). He did say that if the Indian Government agreed to give Sikhs a separate state he would not refuse.
On the topic of Khalistan, Bhindranwale said:

"I don't oppose it nor do I support it. We are silent. However, one thing is definite that if this time the Queen of India does give it to us, we shall certainly take it. We won't reject it. We shall not repeat the mistake of 1946. As yet, we do not ask for it. It is Indira Gandhi's business and not mine, nor Longowal's, nor of any other of our leaders. It is Indira's business. Indira should tell us whether she wants to keep us in Hindustan or not. We like to live together, we like to live in India."

He then followed up by stating:

"if the Indian Government invaded the Darbar Sahib complex, the foundation for an independent Sikh state will have been laid."

Quote Sources: Sandhu (1999), p. LVII.
"The attack was 30 years ago, the current Indian Government has nothing to do with it"
It's true that the current Government wasn't directly responsible for what happened in 1984, however they are not taking any steps in order to dispense justice, in contrast, they are actually doing the opposite by defending the guilty, and continuing to spread information.
People like to put all the blame on Indira Gandhi, and say that she abused her powers to act like a dictator, and was thus solely responsible, however this isnt true. Even after 1984, and the death of Indira Gandhi, the Indian Government was responsible for the mass arrests and killing of Sikhs, fake encounters, rape of Sikh women, false arrest, and spreading lies. If Indira Gandhi or the previous Government were the only ones to blame, then why were so many atrocities committed after, and full justice still not delivered to this day?
You cannot claim that the current Government is innocent when they refuse to declassify the Operation Bluestar files, return the stolen saroops of Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, prosecute those involved, and stop spreading propaganda.
Resources to learn more about what happened in 1984 & beyond
If you would like to learn more about 1984 check out Basics of Sikhi TWC series that covers 1984:

Check out the full Full article "Sikh or Terrorist: Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale" by Bijla Singh.
As for books, read "Fighting for Faith and Nation" by Cynthia Keppley Mahmood, and "When a tree shook Delhi: The 1984 Carnage and Its Aftermath" by Manoj Mitta and H.S. Phoolka.
For websites, visit: Neverforget84.com, Sikhmuseum.com, and ensaaf.org
If you have any more resources, please feel free to let me know and I will add them, thanks you.

I recently found this article written by my colleague at work Enjoy:-
I have been thinking to write this article for a long time. For me highlight in news papers is mostly entertainment section, I choose to read only about this particular section of the news as maybe, I am loosing on to the stress other news can create to ones’ mind. Today in rather stressful life my focus is to keep myself calm and not to take any stress. I feel disillusioned with whatever is happening around me. Right now sitting on my desk and reading the news while sipping tea I stumbled upon the news of racism in India. “We the people” are doing nothing new in this part of the world. Such news just cemented my belief that “yes Indian are racist.” Earlier, we were racist against each other, “untouchabilty” is a biggest example depicting our thought process. Well, not getting into too much of detail, I am writing this based on my own experience and the perceptions of “Indian” human mind. I was an ordinary student who graduated with a professional degree, with dreamy eyes of having a career I stepped in the world of harsh realities. There at my work place, which I thought to be otherwise, there were certain reservations about women. Still paved my way by staying strong and level headed. This was first step where nobody knew me as what I was rather I was just a ignorant young girl often objectified for being my gender. I took a leap and went abroad to study further; there, I was a meek young lady. I introduced myself as Indian. And the Indians there as I thought of them were, nowhere were close to the sense of being Indian. They rather loved to introduce themselves as “Punjabi’s”, “Gujarati’s”, etc. in a contrasting difference I found that people from other countries were limited to their own countries for them they were British/ Welsh /Irish/ Scottish, not as county specific. We Indian were more racist towards each other. Groups of so called; North Indians, East Indians, West Indians and South Indians that’s how we liked it to be. For people in India we were some kind of demigod’s who lived abroad. On my visits to India I was treated as some kind of a celebrity where all the people including officers, judicial persons were so full of respect for me. I was the same young girl who when in India was not even recognized and suddenly a star status was conferred on my shoulders much to my amusement. People used to comment on others “ Madam, these Indians I tell you, are lazy people, they love to be like this that’s why India is lacking on global front( now I wanted to always ask these Indians also include you who is talking all nonsense about your own countrymen) never had courage to ask . Now I am back in India working, not even recognized as same person, back to reality but seemingly happier. To my surprise I found that people here are so racist that they hardly accept us as simple girls. They hold a perception that oh this girl lived in abroad alone, must have had fun! Really!! I would like to say “Dear People of India” please grow up; you are more racist then rest of the world, perhaps your racism in darker than anyone’s in the world. Once abroad you love to play racist card against people there, without understanding the consequences of your behavior, in your own country you having preconceived notions and see color as means to classify the real beauty of India, you charge extremely higher rates for your goods, which they don’t, once you are in their country. I they do so you will be blaming them for being racist as they charge 10 pounds for goods worth 2 pounds. Enough said! we treat people from other countries, as we would never want us to be treated and I certainly have no qualms about it.Racism is what has inculcated in our blood as a result of our own inferiority complex.

Round-up of in-depth stories, op-eds, long form journalism and articles on India from the past week. Stuff that caught my eye, might be of interest to you.
Politics and Crime