Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and Stratergic Intrest of China | Strange Military Stories

Why Did China Create SCO?

From 1996 to 2001, Shanghai Five was used as a tool to resolve issues and demilitarized border. 

The discussions in the group were fruitful enough leading to the group to announce, in 2000, to enhance the discussions beyond border issues to include issues related to separatism and extremism. 

This lead to a new dialogue on multiple security-centric issues under a new rubric called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization SCO (established on 15 June 2001). SCO works on the principle of credit attribution as a tool for self-promotion of the image of the organization. 

Formation	2001
Headquarters	Beijing, China
Official language	Chinese and Russian
Flag
Deputy Secretaries-General	Vladimir Norov
Deputy Secretaries-General	Sabyr Imandosov Wang Kaiwen Aziz Nosirov Vladimir Potapenko
Website	www.sectsco.org

The 9/11 was a game-changer for the SCO and China seeing the new norms established by the GWOT, China conflated the agenda of Uyghurs (in XAR) and ETIM with Al-Qaeda. This allowed China to cooperate with the US to make a sovereign issue of Uyghurs in Xinjiang a frontline in the US's GWOT. But, China also became fearful of rising the US's presence in Central Asia as it felt that the strong US in Central Asia could choke off energy supplies to Central Asia. 

SCO summit 2020

China began to believe that the US presence in Central Asia could be permanent and it could be used by the US as a springboard to destabilize XAR, China thought that the strong US presence in Central Asia is a tool of the US to keep a check on China (through XAR). China responded to the US game plan in June 2001 by institutionalizing the Shanghai Five to SCO. 

In June 2002 annual summit, China proposed the creation of Regional Anti-Terrorism Structure (RATS) and made it a provision in the charter of the SCO. To ensure that the US does not use unilateralism in Central Asia, China, through the Article-2 of the SCO charter, asserted that none of the member states of SCO will accept any unilateral interference in internal issues of Central Asia by any external power. 

In 2005, when Askar Akayev of Kyrgyzstan was ousted by the Tulip revolution, Russia and China perceived such a regime change a handiwork of the CIA of the US. China perceived that such external sponsored regime changes and attempts for democratization could act fuel troubles in areas in China witnessing political dissent (namely XAR). 

The Chinese government even despatched researchers to Kyrgyzstan to study the causes of the Tulip revolution The 2005 Astana summit of the SCO saw Uzbekistan evict the US from the K2 base (decision taken by Uzbeks on pressure from Russia and China). The US perceived the Uzbek decision as a handiwork of Russia and China to use non-military tools to undermine US policies.

Stratergic Intrest in Central Asia

• USA's = the USA want to contain the hegemonic ambitions of Russia and China (Through NATO)

• Russia's = Wants to reassert influence in post-soviet (CSTO)

• INDIA's = Envisages stability, resources, and  national security of India (CCAP)

• CHINA's = Want to curb extremism spillover, take central Asia resources, and use central Asia as the main market for its product.

Member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

The SCO currently comprises:

1. Eight Member States of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

• China, 
• India, 
• Kazakhstan, 
• Kyrgyzstan, 
• Russia, 
• Pakistan, 
• Tajikistan and
• Uzbekistan. 

2. Observer States of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

 Interested in acceding to full membership 

• Afghanistan, 
• Belarus, 
• Iran, and 
• Mongolia.

3. Dialogue Partners  of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

• Armenia, 
• Azerbaijan, 
• Cambodia, 
• Nepal, 
• Sri Lanka and
• Turkey.

The Structure of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)

• The Council of Heads of State is the top decision-making body in the SCO. This council meets at the SCO summits, which are held each year in one of the member states' capital cities.

• The Council of Heads of Government is the second-highest council in the organization. This council also holds annual summits, at which time members discuss issues of multilateral cooperation.

• The Council of Foreign Ministers also holds regular meetings, where they discuss the current international situation and the SCO's interaction with other international organizations.

• The Council of National Coordinators coordinates the multilateral cooperation of member states within the framework of the SCO's charter.

The Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS)

The Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) is a permanent organ of the SCO which serves to promote cooperation of member states against terrorism, separatism, and extremism. The Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure's Headquater is in Tashkent.

How Russia is helping China to beat USA | Strange Military Stories

The recent failure of relations between Russia and the US may not yet lead to a new cold war. according to the situation moscow agreed to take the risk to giving Washington a headache, there is a way russia can do this by overcome internal barriers to the export of sophisticated weapons to china. 

Five areas in which Russia help China:

5. Ballistic Missile:

Ballistic missiles for the past 20 years china has been huge advancing in terms of ballistic missile technology part of second artillery Chinese ballistic missiles now represent a sophisticated versatile threat to any potential opponent. However china has a lot to learn from russia in terms of short-range and long-range missiles.

The russian kandari missile has iconic maneuvers that surpass any chinese missile, this offers a major advantage to the place in a wide range of potential conflicts Russian icbms and slbms are far ahead of their chinese rivals. some systems are objection to export for russian security and intellectual property concerns. if china adapts to russian missiles homology the china could exclude russians from the export markets impart. 

Some members in russian armed forces are blocking the possibility of exporting sophisticated short-range missiles to large  make avoid powerful neighbors with serious tragedy.

4. Air Defense systems

In the concentration of china's anti-access system. air defense networks have received less attention much of the literature focuses on the offensive aspects of the defense system, including submarines cruise missiles ,fighter bombers and ballistic missiles. furthermore the integrity of anti-access or area denial systems effect on the impact of china's air defense systems.

If US aircraft and cruise missiles could attack Chinese air bases communications nodes missile launchers and logistics centers the entire mission would collapse before its mission could be completed. China has done a job in air defense system, especially with the hq-9. however the addition of russian technology will slightly increase the strength of china's air defense network.

Recently it appears that russia export the S-400 sam system to china which will help fill pla technical and coverage caps the S 400 hq-9 can track and engagetargets over long distances enabling china to project an air umbrella over taiwan.

3. submarines 

Submarines as compared with other systems, china has jumped forward in the previous 30 years regarding to submarine innovation the people's liberation army, navy presently feels good nuclear assault submarines, diesel electric subs and even ballistic rocket subs. none of these vessels remain considerably behind u.s standards and even behind the latest generation of Russian submarines. Coming to chinese advantages the prccould gain so much from the akula the oscars theura-class submarine. 

while the prc submarines hope to fill extensively similar missions to those led by soviet vessels, exposed in cold war chinese submarines stay a lot noisier than their russian counterparts and china still can't seem to perfect hunter killer submarine that can tangle directly with the most advanced u.s submarines. Russia has closely secured its submarine technology in the past and the production technology of submarines appears to be the most difficult to be master in industrial process.

 

Russia has not supplied everything to china for manufacturing similar to that of ura class submarines  of technical support will significantly improve the chinese submarines to next generation.

2. Bombers 

The people liberation army air force keeps on working the h6 a subsidiary of the old soviet pu-16 badger plane very similar to the usp-47. various reports suggest that china is considering a new bomber which has at least one potential prototype in the works, russia has considerable experience with china's heavy bombers and still operates many varieties beyond any capacity of the prc air force. these include the tu-95 bear tu-22m backfire and tu-160 blackjack. 

All of these models are older but china represents as advanced that is currently in operation. analysts have periodically raised the possibility to offer tu-22 backfire planes from russia to china yet no deal has happened as expected the opposition seems to have originated from the russian side. They worry about potential knowledge leakage and extreme development of chinese air power. whether russia choose to export pu22ms to china to license their production or essentially give a technical help to china's for new bomber projects. this coordinated effort could deliver a substantially make more deadly pla air force.

1.Jet Engines

Jet engines engine development has been the greatest road blocks in the chinese flight industry. Over the decade chinese jet problems with power and reliability will not only affect j-10 j-11 and j-15 yet in addition, china's new models the j-20 and the j-31. russian engines do not have a reputation for exceptional reliability, but they have performed better than their chinese. counter parts china's interest for buying russian su-35 flankers originates from an interest for looking at and reproducing the engines which would kick off china's own jet engine. industry assisting china's jet engine industry would represent a major hazard for Russia. it would dispense with one of the biggest possible clients for russian engines. this assisting improves china's export position.

conclusion

Things have changed , since the 1990s. China has also become an effective producer of military technology. It no longer uses everything russia produces and its systems are increasingly competing with russia. In the international market for russia the risk of exports to china has increased but russia is happy with increase the headache for US.  

indo china war 1962 Main causes of 1962 | Strange Military Stories

After the panchsheel agreement, dream of Nehru to work with China in a global level to emerge as a global player began to take shape. Nehru was of the view that the success of Panchsheel border question also got settled. Little did Nehru know that his actions would lead indi China war.

Causes of 1962 war: 

1. In 1950, the survey of India had created a boundary between India and China. The Eastern Sector of the boundary was designed as for McMahon Line but demarcated as 'un-demarcated' and the Western and Central sectors boundary was demarcated as 'undefined' and a colour-wash was used. After Panchsheel, Nehru ordered the survey of India to publish new maps and show the boundary demarcated clearly. The survey of India in 1954 published new maps. In the new maps, the words 'un-demarcated' and 'undefined' were dropped. The boundary in the east was now firmly established as per McMahon Line. The colour-wash on the boundary in the Western and Central sectors was also removed and a firm line was established. The boundary in the Western Sector in Kashmir was based on Johnson Line and India showed Aksai Chin as a part of Indian Kashmir as per Johnson Line. Thus, India unilaterally showed Aksai Chin as a part of Indian territory as per the Johnson Line and it is this that acted as the first seed for the conflict. Through these new map issued in 1954, Nehru indirectly conveyed that India's territorial integrity is non-negotiable. Even when India published these maps, China did not respond. In 1954, China established their own maps. In the Chinese maps, they showed Aksai Chin and NEFA as a part of China. Nehru took up this issue with China in 1954. China responded by saying that the Chinese maps are old maps and the PRC has not yet revised those maps. This response by China came as a surprise to India. 

2. After India came out with new maps in 1954, Nehru asserted that India established check posts along the inter Frontier and the check post will act as a symbol of India state their integrity. After China issued maps in 1954, China strongly protested the Indian check posts. China asser that Indians have transgressed deep inside Chinese territory, India responded by asserting that Indian posts were within the Indian territory and not in China. 

China even complained that the boundary line in Middle or Central sectors shown by India is not accurate as the boundary passes in Central Sector through Himalayan passes and all these passes are located inside China. This issue emerged as the second point of friction.

3. The border issue emerged in full proportion after 1957. In 1957, China officially announced that construction of Xinjiang-Tibet road that passed via Aksai Chin. India was shocked that China had secretly constructed a road in Aksai Chin, which was claimed by India as per Johnson Line-1865. The Indian army patrol team was dispatched to Aksai Chin to get the exact coordinates of the road The patrol team was captured by the Chinese and was released only after intervention by Indian MEA. The 1957 Aksai Chin road was the third point of friction.

4. In 1958, a Chinese magazine called China Pictorial printed a Chinese map on pages 20 and 21. In the map, the NEFA and Aksai Chin were shown by China as a part of Chinese territory. India protested to the map in the Chinese magazine by showing the Indian region as a part of China. The MEA of India sent a note to China asserting that China cannot show such a map as Zhou Enlai had asserted that the maps used by China are old maps and PRC has not revised them. So China cannot show old maps as shown in the magazine. 

The Chinese responded in 1958 by asserting that the magazine has shown old maps (this was the old stand by China repeated) but a fresh survey was needed and only after the fresh survey can the map be changed. This was entirely a new approach by China and it had never said this earlier that it announced now. This came as a big blow to India as India had assumed nce 1954th Indian boundary was non negotiable and fever Nehru took up the manner du with China In December 1958, Nehnu wrote a letter to China mentioning the acts above. 

The zim of Nehru was to make China accept the McMahon Line as the border i was in January 1959 China responded and clarified the position China express tremendous dissatisfaction in the way India unilaterally demarcated the borders China reiterated that they had earlier Informed India in 1954 that the Chinese need time to revisit old mups The Indians on the other hand unilaterally showed Aksai Chin as a part of India without consulting China. The Chinese used for the first time in 1939 in their response that the Chinese consider the McMahon line aleyal because the Chinese representative Iven Chang in Simla Convention had net ratified the Simla Convention and therefore the Chinese had rejected the McMahon Line China asserted that the McMahon Line is an imperialistic design of the British and as China did not accept the Simla Convention. 

McMahon Line cannot be considered legally accepted by China. China indirectly convey that China cola eft the McMahon Line provided India displays accommodating attitude on Aksai Chin. The Chinese response was a big blow to India. India had assumed that McMahon Line is the border This response emerged as the fourth point of friction.

5. As explained in earlier section that Tibet add a very well-defined the relationship with China through the Qing dynasty period from 1644 to 1912. In 1724. Chinese seize the opportunity to provide Tibet with Ambans after tribal invasion China also incorporated two regions of Tibet pamed Amdo and Kham into western China and renamed the area Qinghai. This upset Tibetan In 1912 when Qing dynasty collapsed the lie. 

Dalai Lama left India in Darjeeling and went back to Chase. The Tibetans crushed Ambans and Dalai Lama resumed control again and ruled till 1933 In 1935, Tenzin Gyatso became the new Dalai Lama. Meanwhile China was under imperial control of Japan till Second World War. Only in 1949, Mao Zedong defeated the nationalist aid by Chiang Kai-Shek and removed the kuomintang (Kum regime and replaced it with communist regime.

After PRC was born in 1949, it now decided to liberate Tibet from the control of Dalai Lama so that socialist revolution can be done in Tibet. In 1951, when the army of China (PLA) reached Tibet, it decided to crush a small Tibetan army. After crushing the small Tibetan army, China said that they will respect the autonomy of Tibet. In 1951, China and Tibet signed a 17-Point Agreement. Under the 17-Point Agreement, it was decided that the land that is held privately by Tibetans shall be taken away by the state. This upset the Tibetans as the Tibetans have owned a lot of private estate. 

The socialist revolution in Tibet began from peripheral areas of Kham and Amdo that China had occupied from Tibet in 1724 as part of western provinces. Thus China said that Kham (in Sichuan province after 1949) and Amdo (in Qinghai province after 1949) will be from where the communist system will begin. Here the farmers will act on communist lands. All barley and crops produced would be acquired by state and some will be redistributed as for communal principles. Unfortunately, the grains acquired by Chinese state left Tibetans with no grains. This upset the people of Amdo and Kham to this extent that in 1956 they formed resistance groups to arm themselves to fight back China. The CIA of the US assisted these rebels covertly to wage a war against China. As the rebels fought China, there was exodus of people from Amdo and Kham to Lhasa. 

The Chinese PLA continued to suppress the rebels. In 1956, Dalai Lama on his visit to India told Nehru about his desire to put up an asylum in India. This visit generated suspicion in China as China began to think that India and CIA are working together to destabilise Tibet. By 1958, the number of resistance fighters and rebels grew almost 1 lakh. Dalai Lama sent delegates to convince the guerrillas not to fight. The guerrillas convinced the Dalai Lama delegates to join the resistance. The delegates indeed ended up joining the resistance. By 1959, a lot of religious leaders from Amdo and Kham began to go missing. The people of Tibet began to feel that the Chinese were killing their leader to target Dalai Lama.

6. In 1959, captain Adhikari of Assam rifles was told to establish a military post in NEFA regon near McMahon Line at a place called Long. Long was claimed by India and China both. The moment India established a military post at Longju, China attacked the post. Nehru wrote to China that Longju is Indian territory, China refuted Indian claim and asserted that India should refrain from establishing military posts in disputed areas. 

This again became a six friction between the two. China wrote back telling India that India unilaterally cannot declare borders special when McMahon Line is illegal and also unilaterally it cannot declare a firm boundary in Western and Middle sectors when no such boundary ever existed that was mutually agreed.

7. After the discovery of Xinjiang-Tibet Road, IB Chief B. N. Mullick told Nehru to establish forward posts on the border with China. On 21 October 1959, an Indian army team led by Havildar Karan Singh reached Kongka La to establish a post. The Chinese ambushed the entire team. In November,China wrote back to Nehru that the two sides should maintain status quo and withdraw their troops 20 km from actual control position of McMahon Line. 

Nehru wrote back saying that China retreat from Longju. If China does that, India will also not occupy Longju. Nehru also asserted that in the Middle and Eastern Sector, both sides should refrain from sending troops to border areas. China wrote back to Nehru saying that Western Sector cannot be deemed as an acceptable boundary and China invited Nehru to China to negotiate. Nehru immediately could not travel to China due to state visit by the US and USSR lined up. In February 1960, Nehru invited Zhou Enlai for talks Zhou decided to come to India for seven days.

Rohingya Issue : History | 786 movement and way forward

Historical Background

Since the nineteenth century, people from various parts of India migrated to Myanmar. Over a period of time, they became prosperous and asserted their economic strength in the society. The local people of Myanmar were not happy and felt insecure. From 1920s to 1940s, there were violent revolts. During Ne Win's time, the non-Buddhist people were also targeted. Many of them left Myanmar during Ne Win's time.

British Angle

From Bengal, a lot of Muslims were taken by the Britishers to Burma from 1823 onwards when the British occupied the Rakhine State of Myanmar. After the independence of Burma in 1948, these Muslims stayed back in Burma. Many of them are settled in southwest Burma, which is known as the Rakhine area.

Rakhine, Arakan and the Rohingya

The Rakhine area is in Arakan Yoma Mountains or Arakan. From 'Rakhine' a word has originate these Muslims in Myanmar's language and the word is Rohangs. These Muslims are therefore caor Rohingyas (the people of Rakhine). According to the 1982 Citizenship Law (a constitutional order Myanmar, the Rohingyas were not recognised as an official ethnic group and since then have beco stateless in Myanmar.

The 786 and 969 Movement

In the 1990s, a movement in Myanmar began, which came to be known as the 969 Movement movement was a brainchild of Kyaw Lwin. Under the 969 Movement, the government used Lwin ideas win over people by preaching the good practices of Buddhism. In the 2000s, another movement called 786 Movement began. The origin of the 786 concept is in Arabic Abjad numerical system and is inspired from the opening passage of Quran. In Myanmar, 786 usually demarcates an area as belonging to Muslim Normally, Muslims write 786 outside their homes, shops and other things. 

The Arabic meaning of 786 Bismillah Al-Rehman Al-Rahim (In the name of god, most gracious and most merciful). The Buddhist began to misinterpret the 786 Movement and they began to think that this means that the 786 Movement aimed to dominate twenty-first century (7 + 8 + 6 = 21) as the Islamic century. The 9/11 attack in 2001 cemented this fear among the Buddhists that Islam is going to dominate the twenty-first century. The insecurity of the Buddhists began to grow. The Buddhist insecurity manifested in riots in 2011 in the Sittwe-Rakhine region and the brain behind this ethnic violence was Ashin Wirathu. A widespread belief is the fact that Muslims want to dominate Myanmar spread like wildfire. The rise of the radical and rightist Ashin Wirathu has brought out the face of radical Buddhism. This has led to the mass exodus of Rohingya to Indonesia and Thailand in 2015. Those who remain are ritually ghettoised and persecuted. India is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention of 1951 and thus is not mandated to accept refugees. But, on humanitarian grounds, India has accepted a few Rohingyas, India needs to develop an imaginative diplomacy for the Rohingyas. India needs to ask Myanmar to rehabilitate the Rohingyas as not rehabilitating them is detrimental to Indian security interests. If the Rohingyas get radicalised, they could pose a serious security threat for India: India is contemplating appointment of a special envoy to discuss the Rohingya problem with Myanmar

The Basis of Rohingya issue

The Rohingya problem, described by the UN, is a classical textbook case of ethnic cleansing. For India, due to infiltration of Islamic extremism angle, the crisis has acquired a security dimension as well. The Rohingya crisis is a symptom of modern-day Myanmar where at heart of the crisis is the inability of the majority Buddhist states to accept a multireligious society. 

The Rohingya Muslims also end up at a disadvantage because of deep conflict in Myanmar with respect to the civil-military divide and military positioning itself as the protector of the nation. The problem gets compounded because the Rohingya Muslims are treated as 'illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. Secondly, because of them being Muscas, the majority Bamar Buddhist community refuses to accept the Rohingya primacy in the Rakhine arpa Thirdly, the ultra-nationalists Buddhists have resorted to fuel Islamophobia against the Rohingya Muslims, which has caused their further alienation in the society.

Initial response of India

India's response to the rohingya crisis has evolve over three testing phase. In first phase of India's policy, in 2012, when violent conflict begin in the area between Buddhist and rohingya Muslims, India asserted that it is an 'internal' problem of Myanmar. India adopted a two-point policy. First, it provided a 1 million USD package to assist in development and rehabilitation of the Rohingya Muslim. Secondly, India, as part of its age-old tradition of tolerance in welcoming refugees allowed the Rohingya refugees to settle in India (based on the principle of non-refoulement and voluntary repatriation).

Evolution of the First Phase

In 2015, the Rohingya crisis assumed a regional dimension for the first time. In 2015, the Rohingya refugees tried to enter into Malaysia and Thailand. They tried to reach these areas via the sea when their boats were turned around. At that time there were calls made to India to recue the people in the boats. India did not respond to any such requests. There were various factors that went into this shift in Indian perception of the Rohingya Muslims. Firstly, India was not interested in upsetting Myanmar by taking Pshe Rohingya Muslims issue at a time when Myanmar was trying to make a shift towards democracy. UP ia rightly believed that if Myanmar is pushed too much on the Rohingya Muslims issue, it might be compelled to go close to China, which India could not afford strategically. Secondly, India has been deeply alved in Shwe gas field, Kaladan project and Sittwe port development and did not want to upset Myanmar at a time when it was involved with Myanmar at this developmental and strategic level. India followed a careful balance between geopolitics, geostrategic and geoeconomic concerns in the first phase.

The Ideation of 'Displaced Persons' and "Illegal Immigrants' and the Second Phase

The origin of the second phase of India's Rohingya Muslims policy can be traced to 2017. On 9 August 2017, in a response to a Parliamentary question, Indian Home Minister asserted that the government is planning to deport the Rohingya Muslims who are settled in different parts of the country, as they are illegal immigrants'. Even though the minister did clarify that the plan to deport the Rohingya Muslims is still being planned. In September 2017, there was a huge inflow of Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar to Bangladesh This heightened Indian concerns of the possibility of the outflow of the Rohingya Muslims from Bangladesh to India. India immediately responded by launching Operation Insaniyat. Under this operation, the government provided economic assistance to Bangladesh to provide relief to the Rohingya Muslims in the refugee camps in Myanmar. This is an important element of the Indian strategy in the second phase. The core logic is to de-incentivise the refugees to enter into India by incentivising Bangladesh. Thus, as we infer, that in the second phase, apart from geopolitical constraints, India adopted a policy with a mixture of humanitarian elements and non-interference in the internal affairs with adequate diplomatic capital invested in balancing Bangladesh and Myanmar.

The Three Steps of China and India's Constructive Engagement

By the end of the second phase, India was able to achieve clarity regarding how to eventually approach the Rohingya Muslims problem and this led to the rise of the third phase. India developed clarits over three things. Firstly, India stated that the situation could be normalised only when the displaced persons de returned to the Rakhine state. This policy stance meant that the Rohingya Muslims need to turn D Myanmar not only from Bangladesh but also from India. This is where the catch lies. India is the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar as 'displaced persons' but calls the Rohingya Muslims in India as exel immigrants'. Secondly, India believes rightly that the only long-term solution to the problem the Rohingya Muslims is the development of the Rakhine state for which India needs to use its own resources

Initial Response of India

India's response to the Rohingya crisis has evolved over three distinct phases. In the first phase of India's policy, in 2012, when violent conflicts began in the Rakhine area between the Buddhists and Rohingya and also mobilise the resources from the international community. Thirdly, India has asserted that i will maintain a healthy and a constructive engagement with both Myanmar and Bangladesh while at the same time will convince the international community to handle the situation of Rohingya Muslims with restraint, owing to the welfare of the Rohingya Muslims.

The analysis of third phase proves that India's approach to the Rohingya Muslims problem was driven by an urge to find a resolution to the Rohingya Muslims crisis. This is a perfect case of quiet Indian diplomacy at work. The ulterior reason for India to resort to the third phase was to counter the proactive and assertive role that China began to play in the resolution of Rohingya Muslims crisis. China had announced a three-step strategy to solve the Rohingya Muslims crisis. China asserted that, firstly, their needs to be a ceasefire to ensure people do not run around and live in peace. Secondly, China asserted that there needs to be intense consultations on the basis of equality.

Thirdly, China asserted the need for the international community to develop the Rakhine state. Indian perception was that if it does not step in into the issue of Rohingya Muslims immediately, then it would end up in providing strategic space to China to decide on issues in the Indian neighbourhood. This would enable China to take geopolitical gains in India's own backyard. This is the reason why India decided to step up its developmental engagement with the government of Myanmar and ended up in concluding agreements to undertake housing development, medicine support etc. for the Rohingya Muslims in the Rakhine area. As the countries in the West are busy in mitigating their own challenges, India has taken the Western vacuum to place itself in a comfortable position in developing its own strategy for the problem of Rohingya Muslims.

Explaining India's Approach

There are two schools of thought that help us to analyse the conceptual prism of India's Rohingya policy According to the first school, India has hesitation in designating an asylum seekers as refugees. Due to this thought in the strategic community of India, India creates disincentives for asylum seekers to stay permanently in India. According to the first school, the reason why India does not favour permanent settlement of refugees in India is because of an absence of a national policy for refugees

The second school of thought tries to explain the Indian approach to the Rohingya Muslims by looking at the concept of implications. This school tries to explain the Rohingya Muslims problem through the implications Rohingya Muslims will have on India. As per this school the government's approach of the Rohingya Muslims problem is explained through a security lens. This school asserts that the government in India is looking at the Rohingya Muslims problem as problem of radicalisation, which can lead to a spill over on the Muslim population of India. As per the second school, this policy of the government is a short-sighted policy because it puts thousands of members of Indian diaspora in Myanmar under a serious risk while allowing other states to take lead in proposing solutions to the Rohingya Muslims problem (Chinese three-step solution). The second school assets that the Indian government's policy Rohingya Muslims negates India's own past of being a democratic society with an open door for refuge

The Way Forward

Three issues emerge in conclusion. First, the way the government has handled the Rohingya Muslims problem has certainly raised questions on the democratic credentials in India. Secondly, India's initial reluctance to take a lead initially and reacting only after India saw the Chinese enter has raised questions on India's regional leadership question. Thirdly, the concentration of desperate people in Bangladesh and Myanmar only provide a fertile ground for breeding forms of radicalisation.

One thing is clear. Instead of resorting to megaphone diplomacy to solve the Rohingya Muslims problem, India has preferred quiet diplomacy. 

As a future strategy, India should ensure that the Rohingya Muslims are not deported back to Myanmar until it is safe for the Rohingya Muslims to reside in Myanmar. India can always prioritise national security, but such prioritisation should not be imprudent and self-defeating. India should strive to establish cooperative agreements with Myanmar and Bangladesh to facilitate intelligence sharing that can prevent the rise of radicalisation. A long-term strategy India should adopt is to try making the Rohingya Muslims problem a core diplomatic agenda at various regional forums like the BIMSTEC and ASEAN. A 'regional diplomatic approach' can be a fruitful strategy in the long run. At the global level, India can play a role in convincing the West that sanctions on Myanmar will not work and eventually push Myanmar closer to China. Thus, the international community should constructively engage with Myanmar and help carve a developmental discourse. Such a strategy can help sharpen India's global credentials and help position India as a state with diplomatic capital for crisis management. As a rising power which possesses global aspirations coupled with a tradition-based history on dealing with refugees, India is duty-bound to shape a narrative on the Rohingya Muslims problem.

1962 war India China war

1962 Conflict

In June 1962, the Indian army had established a forward post in Namka Chu river and named that post as Dhola. This is despite the fact that this post on South Bank of Namka Chu river was in Che Jong area of Gina, while Dhola was a mountain near the post. China objected to the post saying that the post is North of McMahon Line inside China and India has no right in this area. India insisted that the post was in proper Dhola region only and not in China.

As the Chinese objected, the GOC of army in the area suggested that the post be relocated to Thagala Ridge. By the time Army HQ granted the permission, Chinese established the post in Thagala Ridge. The Chinese were surprised to see violation of 1959 idea of not patrolling and establishing posts by India. On 13 September 1962, Chinese troops made an announcement from other side of Namka Chu river that India retreat from the post. As India ignored the advice, on 20 September 1962, Chinese dropped a grenade to attack the Indian post. The grenade was thrown by China to compel India to subdue and withdraw by inculcating a sense of fear. The government decided to respond to the grenade attack by deciding to evict China from Namka Chu. The Indian side sent a patrol team on 9 October 1962 near Namka Chu. 

As the patrol team reached close, China vehemently fired back on India. The entire dream and assumption of forward policy collapsed. Nehru was in Colombo and from there he addressed the press asserting that India has ordered the army to evict the Chinese from Namka Chu. This was perceived to be aggressive by China. Has decided to teach a painful military lesson to India. On 20 October 1962, Chinese attacked from Namka Chu and almost reached Tezpur, Bomdila and Tawang. The Chinese launched attacks on Western front at Galwan post bear Daulat Beg Oldi. On 24 October 1962, Zhou Enlai told Nehru to settle the border peacefully. He urged that till the time both parties do not settle the border peacefully, neither of the sides should undertake patrolling up to 20 km of LAC. 

The term LAC was used for the first time by China here. Zhou Enlai asserted that LAC meant the customary line in Western and Central sectors and Eastern Line under McMahon Line. Nehru insisted that China goes back to its position of 8 September 1962- the position where it was before it had occupied Namka Chu post by crossing the river. Zhou rejected this. The Chinese by November 1962 almost reached Sela pass, Tawang and were not far from Tezpur. India asked the US to help. President Kennedy dispatched an aircraft carrier to Bay of Bengal and squadrons of the US air force were dispatched. The Chinese on 21 November 1962 declared a unilateral ceasefire and retreated to 20 km of the LAC. China did not demand Indian retreat but asserted that China may strike back if India fires in China. Nehru did not impede the implementation of the ceasefire and the conflict came to an end. The forward policy of India met with the counter-forward policy of China led to the end of the conflict.

India - China border tension

India- China Border Issues

Let us to understand the border issue

Tibetans

They poferred to stay in isolation and they had different beliefs from Han Chinese. The spiritual head of Tibetans is Dalai Lama and he is also called as the political head. Tibetans have never owed any allegiance to rulers of China unlike rulers of Korea and Vietnam. In 1717, there were Dzungar tribesmen who invaded Tibet and this upset China China responded to this invasion by sending a military governor in Lhasa called as Ambans in 1728. The Chinese posted commissioners called Ambans in eighteenth century. 

The Chinese instructed the Tibetans to respect Ambans in Lhasa. But China neither annexed Tibet nor did it allow its independence. In 1614, Qing dynasty came to power and prior to Qing dynasty the political status of debit was not clear. After the Amban rule, Tibet-China had a priest-patron relation, In 17 China and Tibet rule got transformed as China issued a 29-point decree to Ambans that Ambans powers equivalent to Dalai Lama. gave Chinese Jahns

Eastern Sector

In 1769, there was a conflict in Nepal between Newars and Gurkhas. The British supported Newars (Hindus) against Gurkhas. Gurkhas defeated Newars and established Hindu kingdom. The year of 1814 saw an Anglo-Nepal war and British won the war by defeating the Gurkhas. The British concluded Treaty of Sagauli and gained access to Tibet via Kumaon and Garhwal. Since 1775, Gurkhas were attacking Sikkimese people. In 1817, after British defeated Gurkhas in 1814, the British signed Treaty of Titalia with Sikkim in 1817. As per the treaty, Sikkim enjoyed British protection and Sikkim became a trade route to Lhasa. The treaty also gave British a platform in Sikkim to watch Gurkhas. The Treaty of Titalia was replaced in 1861 and gave British larger say in Sikkim.

The Region of Assam

Assam was under an Ahom kingdom and it became weak by 1820s. Burma saw a weak Ahom rule as an opportunity to expand to Assam. The British decided to check Burma and as a result in 1824 Anglo-Burma war took place. Burma got defeated in Anglo-Burma war in 1824. In 1826 Burma and British concluded a peace Treaty in Yandabo, As per the treaty, British got Assam under their control. The British in Assam saw a bright spot in oil and tea plantations. When British resorted to tea plantation it led to their conflict with tribes of Assam.

Assam had also given British and easier access to Tibet for trade via Lohit valley region. But accessing Tibet was becoming problematic due to tribals coming in as obstructionist. So British decided to create inner-line and outer-line permit system with tribals. The inner and outer-line permits ensured easy trade. The region of Arunachal or Tawang was under the control of Monpas of Tawang. The Monpas of the Town ethnically different people from Tibetan and are non-Tibetans.

Kashmir

With Treaty of Lahore, the British they got access to Jammu, Ladakh and Kashmir, which were to be managed by Gulab Singh. In 1845-46 there was an Anglo-Sikh war and British won it. The British won the position of Kashmir from Sikhs. The British did not directly control Kashmir. The British entered into a Treaty of Amritsar with Gulab Singh and told Gulab Singh to administer Kashmir. 

Under the treaty, the British transferred the region east of Indus and eastern boundary hills to Gulab Singh but told him that the British will carry out survey and then define to Gulab Singh the purpose of this transfer. So under the Treaty of Amritsar, British accepted that the boundary on the east was not defined. The reason why the British maintained unambiguous boundary in the east was because it never wanted to upset China. China always maintained that there was no need for a boundary in the east because since ancient times, the Karakorum acted as a natural border. So under the Treaty of Lahore, Gulab Singh was to manage Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh and under the Treaty of Amritsar Gulab Singh was not to alter boundaries and maintain balance of power.

 Check recent China standoff in Ladakh full Explained

Johnson Line

 On the east of the Chinese border existed a territory called Kashgar Kashgar region was underthe control of China. In 1864, the local ruler of Kashgar. Yakub Beg, rebelled against China. After he rebelled, Yakub Beg established the kingdom of Kashgar. During Yakub Beg's rebellion, Gulab Singh forces had helped Yakub Beg against China. In return for his help, Gulab Singh built a fort in Kashgar. Now under Treaty of Amritsar, British had told that they would carry a survey to east. So in 1865, Johnson carried out a survey of the east region as mandated under Treaty of Amritsar. Johnson published the map and in that map he showed the areas from Shahidullah, Aksai Chin to Kunlun as part of Kashmir. 

The Johnson Line map was published in 1868 and when it was published, the world got to know about this area of Aksai Chin for the first time. Johnson showed Aksai Chin region as a part of Kashmir because this region was under Yakub Beg and when Yakub Beg had rebelled against China to establish Kashgar province, Gulab Singh had assisted Yakub Beg and also built fort in that area. So, Johnson thought Aksai Chin area belongs to Kashmir. In 1868, by Johnson Line is published, the then surveyor General Colonel Walker rejected the fact that Aksai Chin belongs to Gulab Singh as depicted by Johnson. One thing to remember is that it is the same Johnson Line which is used by India since 1947 to claim Aksai Chin as a part of India. However, most of the Chinese maps at that time had shown Aksai Chin as part of China. This is why when Johnson Line is published, Walker rejected to accept Aksai Chin shown as a territory of Gulab Singh. 

McCartney-MacDonald Line and Ardagh Line

In 1877, the Chinese army captured Kashgar and defeated Yakub Beg and renamed Kashgar as Xinjiang. The British feared Russian advancement from Central Asia to North Kashmir, which would act as threat to imperial Security. To check Russian advances, the British had to watch Kashmir where two important regions were Hunza valley and Gilgit region. So in 1892, the British established the military post in Gilgit and acquired control of Hunza and Nagar.

China had been making claims over Hunza. The ruler of Hunza to was tilted towards China. The British did not like this. In 1896, John Ardagh proposed a line. This line was a strategic adoption of Johnson Line (1865). The line proposed a boundary in the crust of Kunlun and incorporated Karakash and Yarkand river areas. To check Russian advancement, the British wanted a solution. They decided to bury Johnson Line and John Ardagh Line and decided to propose a new solution.

The British minister in pecking Sir Claude McDonald proposed to British minister in Kashgar Charles McCartney in 1899 to finally solve the Kashmir-China boundary. The British wanted that China renounce their claim over Hunza. As most of the Chinese map showed Aksai Chin as part of China, the British decided to do a trade-off. In 1899, McCartney-McDonald Line is proposed. The proposal was that China relinquishes its claim over Hunza and take Aksai Chin. This line had the potential to resolve the issue The proposal was sent to Peking but Peking remained silent on the same and didn't respond. The British continue their control over Hunza and status of Aksai Chin since Johnson Line remained unclear.

History of Tibet : British Expedition | Military Stories

History of Tibet

In 1890, British and Chinese signed a trade treaty to do trade via Sikkim-Tibet border. The treat did not include the Tibetans, The Tibetans became upset and decided to protest. They destroyed the set up by the Britishers. The Tibetans were upset that a trade treaty could not be signed by British and China to do trade via Tibet without the Tibetans involved.

The British and Chinese did not pay any importance to demand of the Tibetans. In 1893, the British and Chinese now signed a convention to do trade via Chumbi Valley, This again upset the Tibetans as Tibetan were again not involved. The then Dalai Lama Thubten Gyatso now began to realise that Tibet will need third party support. Thubten Gyatso's advisor was Agvan Dorzhiev Dorzhiev was a Khori-Buryar mongol of a teacher of Gyatso also. He guided Gyatso to seek help of Russia. 

From 1898 to 1901, Thubten and his men regularly visited Russia and Dorzhiev acted as a mediator. In 1899, Lord Curzon became the next viceroy and replaced Lord Elgin Curzon had hatred for Russians. Lord Curzon sent mission to Lhasa. He wanted to inform through the mission to the Dalai Lama to respect the 1893 convention. The mission was led by Younghusband. The mission of Young husband reached Lhasa in 1904. The moment the mission reached there. Thubten and Dorzhiev fled to Lhasa and Tibet again came under the control of Ambans. As Ambans controlled Tibet again, China again became supreme in Tibet. Younghusband mis directly dealt with the Ambans.

A new treaty was concluded between British and China on Tibet.

As per the treaty:

• Tibet will no longer enter into third party treaties including with China without permission of British.

• British will get access to all trading posts in the region. • A British agent will be station in South Tibet.

The British concluded the treaty with Ambans. As visible in the treaty, the British did not make Tibet a British protectorate nor fully established their presence in Tibet but allowed China to continue a low-level administrative presence in Tibet through Ambans. Thus, the 1904 Lhasa convention ensure that the Tibet becomes a buffer between China and British India. Taking advantage of 1904 Lhasa convention, the Chinese proposed that there be a new convention. In 1906, China proposed the new convention asserting that British accept that neither would they interfere in Tibet nor will they annex Tibet. The British agreed. This was now followed in 1907 Anglo Russian convention where both Britain and Russia agreed not to negotiate with the Tibet without the presence of China. In 1909  Dalai Lama tried to come back to Tibet but at China had already taken over the control of the Tibet, Dalai Lama fled to India in 1909.

Cyber war | what is cyber warefare| cyberspace

Cyber warfare

Actions by a nation-state actor to attack and attempt to damage another nation's computers or critical infrastructure is known as cyber warefare.

Cyber crime

Somewhere in the South China Sea, a US and European missile cruiser on joint patrol stray too close to one of China's many man-made islands. Illegally built and hardened with military facilities- despite a ruling to their illegality by The Hague in international court- China has warned repeatedly that it will not tolerate any other nation's military presence near the controversial islands. 

The United States and the European Union meanwhile have both taken the side of many of the South China Sea's lesser nations, such as Vietnam and the Philippines, who see the military build-up as an incursion into their sovereign water  and an attempt to bully them into submission. Refusing to bow before Chinese aggression,the US and European militaries have routinely engaged in freedom of navigation exercises through the disputed man-made island chains. Yet this patrol is different. The local Chinese commander- acting on his own or perhaps with authority from his chain of command- orders a Chengdu J-20 combat patrol into the air. Armed with anti-ship missiles, the jets super cruise to within a few dozen miles of their targets, but this time instead of warning off the European and American ships, they are ordered to retaliate for the incursion. 

On board the European cruiser, alarms soundas three of the four Chinese aggressors loose a volley of anti-ship missiles. Immediately the ship syncs up with its American counterparts via a wireless communications link, and together the two ship's powerful AEGIS systems track the incoming missiles and fire off countermeasures. One ship protecting the other, supersonic interceptors fire off from the decks of both ships, eight tasked with intercepting the incoming missiles and another eight screaming into the night sky to take out the Chinese jets. The exchange between the two sides lasts just forty five seconds, at the end of which three Chinese planes are fiery wrecks, with one having landed a hit on the European cruiser and killing dozens of sailors.

Military comm networks relay news of the confrontational light speed to commanders around the globe, and within minutes air, sea, and ground forcesacross Asia, Europe, and America are gearing up for World War III. Yet within just seconds of the news of the attack on the European and American ships, a new generation of weapons have already been deployed. Less than a minute after news of two dozendead European sailors and three downed Chinese pilots reach the desks of their respective military commanders, cyberweapons have already gone on the offensive, a digital war sweeping across the internet at the speed of light, and catching the entire world in its wake.

Such a scenario may seem a bit far-fetched,yet it's an eventuality that every day militaries all over the world prepare for. In fact, every single day a digital war takesplace amidst the background chatter of daily internet use, with nations attacking each other's critical infrastructure looking for vulnerabilities. Considered a 'soft war', these attacks aremeant to look for and stockpile potential vulnerabilities in the digital systems that are the lifeblood of modern nations. Energy grids, communications and financial networks are the primary targets, and while no nation is yet launching an offensive to actually cripple these systems, they instead stockpile vulnerabilities so that they can exploits them in a time of war. 

Yet other nations, such as Russia, carry out more overt and hostile attacks such as against a nation's political systems. Best seen in the 2016 US Presidential election,during which Russia hacked the DNC to favor the Donald Trump campaign, Russia has in fact been carrying out cyber attacks against the political systems of NATO and Baltic nations for at least a decade. Russia has regularly used its cyber muscle to favor far-right politicians while attacking centrists and liberal candidates. They use their cyber influence to stoke dissent amongst a country's citizens, and to stoke fear and xenophobia which they can channel towards the far-right, nationalistic candidates that they prefer and can thus manipulate on selected into office.

Russia's reach is indeed far, and while their influence on the 2016 election was significant, their best success to date so far may be Britain's Brexit vote, during which they ran disinformation campaigns online to stoke xenophobia. With Brexit being a widely recognized political and economic disaster for Britain, Russia has found great success in its cyber offensive operations. Yet if cyber warfare is so prevalent and has obviously hostile intent, why don't nations react the way they would to kinetic attacks? That's partly to do with the fact that cyber warfare itself is a very new development, and so the international community is at a loss as to how exactly respond to the cyber offenses of another hostile nation. In Russia's example, NATO could react witha kinetic attack against Russia, but politicians must ask themselves if cyber operations aretruly threatening enough to warrant an all-out kinetic war.

When a hostile nation has so clearly meddled in your politics and perhaps set the course of your nation's political leadership, the question may indeed need to be considered a strong yes- after all, just how sovereigns nation are you really if your elected leader is a tool of the Kremlin, or routinely takes action on the international stage that benefit the very nation that is hostile to you and is attacking you every day? There simply exist no clearly defined boundaries between what constitutes a hostile military attack against a nation, and what is simply cyber crime. Currently cyber attacks by hostile nations are lumped together with espionage, crime, and hactivism, and realistically you wouldn't call for an airstrike against a teenager hacking into Papa John's to get themselves free pizza delivered.

You wouldn't do such a thing because it would've an over-reaction, but also because it's completely unrealistic: nobody wants PapaJohns pizza- even if it's free. On a serious note though, our current lack of political will to classify hostile cyber attacks as military actions only leaves nations even more vulnerable to being further attacked.

Russia, emboldened by their 2016 success in the US election, has for instance been widely reported by intelligence agencies around theworld as gearing up for an ever greater campaign against the American voter in 2020. Yet the US has largely been silent in itsresponse to Russian aggression- despite President Obama's expulsion of several Russian diplomats known to be active spies, and an alleged brief cyber attack against Russian systems that led to some Russian computers overheating and melting down.

 Sadly the Trump administration has shown little willingness to punish Russia for its attacks against the US, and not only is the lack ofthe political will to strike back suspicious, but it is also dangerous for the world at large. If the world continues down the road we areon, cyber attacks will only escalate until ending disastrously in an attack that's finally large enough to warrant a military response, starting a large scale war. Yet such an attack will likely be completely devastating to the victimized nation, resulting in major disruptions to its power grid or financial and communication systems, bringing its economy to a screeching halt. 

Perhaps what would be best instead is if cyberattacks were at last met with a significant response, thus marking a clear line in thesand for just how far cyber warfare can be taken before military retaliation is inevitable. But just how deadly could a cyber war reallybe? The answer to that question is in our ownnot too distant past. In the early 2000s before the Iran nuclear deal, Israel was reaching a political crisis point. For its own continued survival it could notallow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, yet with the expansion of several enrichment facilities iran was poised to do just that in a matter of years.

Many inside of Israel saw a preemptive strikeas the best course of option, yet each time Israeli jets had strayed into Iran, they had brought up the possibility of major retaliation. An all-out war between Israel and Iran would have quickly spilled over into other Arab countries, leading to yet another Jew-Arabwar which would have in turn brought in Israel's American and European allies. For the US this situation was completely unacceptable,as was a nuclear Iran. Not only was there the risk of a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel, but if Iran was allowed to develop nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia andJordan both had already stated that they would immediately begin developing their own nuclear weapons as well. 

In short a nuclear iran would lead to a nuclear middle east, the single most volatile region in the entire world. Yet allowing Israel to kick off another majorwar by invading Iran was not a good option either, and with Iran digging its enrichment centrifuges deep underground, simple military strikes would prove fruitless. That's when US and Israeli computer scientistscame forward with a solution. They believed they could infect Iranian computer with a worm that could in turn destroy the Iranian centrifuges, and leave the Iranians one the wiser as to what exactly happened.

 The plan was immediately ok'ed, and working together, US and Israeli engineers developed the Stuxnet virus. However, the centrifuges and the computer network they were linked to were not connected to the internet for obvious security reasons. This means that the virus would have to bebrought in physically and uploaded directly to the secure computer network, and to dothis several Iranian nuclear scientists were singled out and targeted digitally. Eventually the team managed to infect thelaptop of one of the scientists while he was connected to the internet, and when he brought the laptop into the nuclear facility and connected to the network there, the worm hopped inside the secure computer systems and began to wreak havoc.

 Centrifuges began to spin wildly out of control,causing massive destruction and bringing the Iranian nuclear program to its knees. In the end thousands of centrifuges were destroyed,all by the simple click of a button. A modern cyber war could have just as dire,and physical consequences. If infected, the computer systems of nuclear power plants could be shut down, or hijacked completely- hackers could for instance orderthe release of all water in the plant's cooling system, which would lead to a nuclear meltdownof the overheated reactors and regional disasters all across the land. With hundreds of nuclear power plants aroundthe world, this could devastate major portions of most modern nations. 

After the Russians cyber attack

Even conventional power systems could be affected theough with the physical infrastructure overloaded to the point of causing significant structural damage across a nation's power grid. Such a disaster would take weeks, or monthsto repair, and if it happened during winter could lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable segments of a population. Dams could be hijacked as well, and emergency slices meant to help deal with rising water levels during heavy rains could be forced to remain closed, leading to a collapse of the entire damn. 

This would bring untold devastation as hundreds of millions of gallons of water rushed downstream to overtake the communities living in theshadows of large dams such as the three gorges dam or the Hoover dam. Luckily for us, no nation has yet dared to launch any such attack against the other- save for some cases of tampering of Ukraine's energy grid by Russia. Yet the reality is that in the case of another major war, these types of attacks would be the first to be launched by a hostile power.

 The option is especially attractive for nations such as Russia and China, who find themselves at a considerable military disadvantage against Europe and its American ally, and in the case of war, it's a certainty that some degree of major attack against a nation's digital infrastructure would take place. The unknown question to many though is justhow severe an attack will take place, and how well could a nation weather such an attack. Even more troubling is the fact that many of these attacks could result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions,and yet these cyber weapons are not yet considered weapons of mass destruction.

 If caught unawares and the US is crippled by a cyber attack that leads to millions of incidental deaths, are the leaders of Russia and China confident that American leadership won't consider this an attack by a weapon of mass destruction and retaliate with a nuclear attack? That is the question that haunts many of theworld's premier cyber experts, and sadly, one that we might just have to blunder into in order to find the answer out. The Cyber War will and already is happening and the people who are going to suffer the most are normal users like you. 

The military has whole teams fighting this,what do you have? You don’t need to have the resources of an army to protect yourself. Let us know in the comments, and as always if you enjoyed this article don't forget to Like, Share, and Subscribe for more great content!