{"id":28143,"date":"2014-02-17T16:07:23","date_gmt":"2014-02-17T21:07:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/?p=28143"},"modified":"2014-02-17T16:07:23","modified_gmt":"2014-02-17T21:07:23","slug":"chennai-talks-on-indo-lanka-fishing-disputewhat-it-achievedwhat-it-did-not-achieve-and-what-it-did-not-actually-aim-to-achieve","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/?p=28143","title":{"rendered":"Chennai Talks on Indo-Lanka Fishing Dispute:What it achieved,What it did not achieve and What it did not Actually aim to Achieve."},"content":{"rendered":"


\nby<\/p>\n

N Sathiya Moorthy <\/strong><\/p>\n

Tamil Nadu\u2019s hosting of the much-publicised and even more needed\/delayed talks between the State\u2019s fisher representatives and their Sri Lankan counterparts on 27 January, followed by the local fishers commitment not to deploy vessels, gears and fishing methods banned in Sri Lanka for 30 days to prove their sincerity and seriousness has set the tone for taking the gains of the Chennai negotiations forward. Independent of the talks and also each other, the Sri Lanka Navy (SLN) first, and the Indian Coast Guard (ICG) later, began arresting fishers from the other country in the days that followed, making the latter\u2019s release a condition-precedent of sorts for taking forward the negotiations, as promised, at Colombo in March.<\/p>\n

Yet, teething troubles of the kind, almost from the commencement of the idea of a fishers\u2019 talks blessed by the Governments concerned, did not dampen their spirits in particular. It has only been enhanced, since. Interestingly, most fisher representatives on either side were new compared to an NGO-driven round of negotiations in 2010-11. Though the present batch of negotiators did not sign any relatively detailed agreement of the kind as in 2010, the general mood on either side of the \u2018fisher-divide\u2019 was one of bonhomie and mutual accommodation, as in the past. <\/p>\n

The Chennai meeting should be noted for the specifics, of what it achieved and what it did not \u2013 rather, what it did not actually aim to achieve. First and foremost, Governments across the Palk Strait, namely those of Sri Lanka, India and Tamil Nadu, \u2018quasi-official status\u2019 on the talks with the participation of their officials. Tamil Nadu was also represented by the Fisheries Minister, though he and his team, were there only as \u2018observers\u2019. So did officials of the Governments of India and Sri Lanka.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The 2010 Chennai talks, facilitated by the \u2018Alliance for Release of Innocent Fishermen\u2019 (ARIF), preceded by an extensive tour of the southern Tamil Nadu coast by the Sri Lankan fisher representatives, and the follow-up review meeting at Colombo in March 2011, did not have any official representative of the Tamil Nadu Government. At Chennai-2010, two Sri Lankan Fisheries officials were present as observers. At Colombo months later, an official of the Indian High Commission was also present as an observer. An all-round presence of officials at Chennai-2014, representing various stake-holders, would make a difference to future processes and prospects.<\/p>\n

Two, even though \u2018political considerations\u2019 may have played a part in the choice of fisher representatives in either country, the fact that \u2018new faces\u2019 have joined the negotiations, compared to the ARIF-driven process of 2010, may have in fact helped expand the level of participation and representation, too, before any final decision is arrived at. Considering however the ground realities, any future solution, to be effective and implementable, should be flowing from what otherwise is the comprehensive 2010 agreement, coupled with the 2008 Government-level Joint Statement at Delhi.<\/p>\n

The \u2018Joint Statement on Fishing Arrangements\u2019, issued after high-level talks in Delhi on 26 October 2010, at the height of \u2018Eelam War IV\u2019, provided for \u2018practical arrangements\u2019 to deal with \u2018bona fide Indian and Sri Lankan fishermen crossing the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL)\u2019. Basil Rajapaksa, then Senior Advisor and brother of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, represented Sri Lanka at the talks. Basil R is at present the nation\u2019s all-important Minister for Economic Development.<\/p>\n

The Joint Statement also said that \u201cIndian fishing vessels will not venture into \u2026 identified sensitive areas (designated as High Security Zone, or HSZ, by Sri Lanka)\u2026and will carry valid registration\/permit\u201d. It added that \u201cthere will be no firing on Indian fishing vessels\u201d (by Sri Lanka Navy, fighting the \u2018Sea Tiger\u2019 wing of the LTTE on the seas, at the time). While the Sri Lanka Navy (SLN) has mostly adhered to the commitment, there has been an increasing incidence of arrest of Indian\/Tamil Nadu fishers in Sri Lankan waters, since. However, they used to be freed after a time.<\/p>\n

In recent months, the arrested fishers are also being produced before Sri Lankan courts, remanded to custody, with the imprisonment being extended almost every time it became due. Likewise on the Indian side, Sri Lankan fishers detained by the Coast Guard in the country\u2019s waters are also being remanded to custody after being produced before the local courts. In a way, the recent\/current crisis on the fishers\u2019 front(s) flowed from the arrests and remand-extensions, and was among the compelling reasons for the respective Governments showing a greater interest than usual for facilitating face-to-face negotiations between the affected fisher communities.<\/p>\n

There has not been any change to the practice \u2013 on either side \u2013 despite the Chennai-2014 meeting. This may owe to the fact that both the Sri Lanka Navy and the Indian Coast Guard have their well-defined mandates and cannot be expected to deviate from the same until told otherwise. Such a course could be considered, if at all, only after a final settlement to the fishers\u2019 issue, with due attestation by
\nthe Governments concerned. <\/p>\n

The maritime security forces of the two countries are out there to protect the \u2018sovereignty\u2019 and \u2018territorial integrity\u2019 of the respective nations, and any illegal crossing of IMBL should be of concern to them, independent of fishers\u2019 talks, even if blessed officially by the respective Governments at this stage.<\/p>\n

The non-official ARIF-driven agreement of August 2010 committed the Tamil Nadu fishers to discontinue the use of bottom-trawlers within a year. In turn, the two sides agreed for the Tamil Nadu fishers to fish for 70 \u2018fishing days\u2019 in the year, in Sri Lanka\u2019s northern waters, 3-5 nautical miles off the Sri Lankan coast in these parts. In the absence of official blessings on either side, and also the continued intransigence of the Tamil Nadu fishers in the use of bottom-trawlers and gears banned by and in Sri Lanka, the March 2011 follow-up talks in Colombo did not cover any ground.<\/p>\n

Confidence-building measures<\/strong><\/p>\n

In this background, the revival of fisher-level talks, that too with the blessings and participation of the Governments concerned (even if only as \u2018observer\u2019) should go a long way in acting as the much-needed and equally timely \u2018confidence-building measure\u2019 (CBM), which is otherwise lacking in the process. The fact that both sides have agreed to meet again in Colombo, possibly in March, should hence be welcome in terms of furthering the CBM \u2013 even if the Colombo negotiations too may not (be able to) cover the entire ground.<\/p>\n

The intervening elections in Tamil Nadu for the national Parliament in April-May, preceded by the Western and Southern Provincial Council polls in Sri Lanka on 29 March, would be both an opportunity and a challenge for the Governments across the Palk Strait, to take forward the hope and momentum set in Chennai, however limited. In this context, the arrest of fishers in each other\u2019s waters and their long imprisonment along with the boats end up providing the grist for the political mill.<\/p>\n

In turn, the arrests have the potential to discount the dividends provided by the CBMs and complicate the negotiation issues. In their place, the release of detained fishers could end up becoming the CBM and the issue at the same time, thus denying hopes and possibilities for negotiations inching forward, whenever and wherever held. The Governments would have to ensure that the arrests and release should not end up becoming a \u2018ritual\u2019, nor should they continue to be a hurdle to a negotiated settlement.<\/p>\n


\nHolistic agreement<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yet, for any talks of the kind to succeed, the fishers have to address individual issues and concerns, holistically. Though negotiations may be issues and segments-based, final, enforceable peace alone can be a holistic agreement. Both Chennai-2014 talks and the agreement signed by fisher representatives from the two countries relate only to the Palk Strait\/Palk Bay region. It is likely that the follow-up negotiations in Colombo too would be addressing this segment, mainly.<\/p>\n

There are two other segments that too need to be addressed for a full and final settlement of the kind. One pertains to the Gulf of Mannar fishers from Tamil Nadu crossing into Sri Lankan waters along the eastern coast. Secondly, the concerns of the southern Sri Lankan fishers, arrested by the Indian Coast Guard, but handed over to, and detained in States other than Tamil Nadu.<\/p>\n

The Tamil Nadu fisher representatives for the talks this time came from both the Palk Strait and the Gulf of Mannar regions. Likewise, the Sri Lankan delegation also comprised fishers from the North, East and the traditional South. The Chennai-2014 negotiations pertained mainly to the problems in the Palk Strait covering southern Tamil Nadu and northern Sri Lanka.<\/p>\n

The Palk Strait fishers\u2019 problems, as also the problems that they create for fellow-Tamil fishers of Sri Lanka, pertain to the northern Sri Lankan coast. The Gulf of Mannar fishers from India are arrested off the eastern coast of Sri Lanka, on charges of trespassing and poaching, in equal numbers and as deep inside the Sri Lankan waters as the Palk Strait counterparts are detained deep inside the northern waters.<\/p>\n

The Gulf of Mannar Indian fishers come from districts such as Nagapattinam, Tiruvaur, Pudukottai and Thanjavur, apart from the Karaikal enclave of the Union Territory of Puducherry. Whether they could claim the same right to \u2018traditional waters\u2019 as the Rameswaram fishers down south claim in the case of the Palk Strait is an equally, if not more ticklish legal question, as the other. More importantly, with any relief coming in the way of the Rameswaram fishers through a negotiated arrangement of any kind, the Gulf of Mannar too would expect the kind of facility and facilitation.<\/p>\n

The common alternative would be for the State and Central Governments in India to facilitate all fishers crossing into Sri Lankan waters to look at other seas within Indian territorial waters, or go in for deep-sea, multi-day fishing. Already, the Tamil Nadu Government has offered 50 percent subsidy for the conversion of existing boats into deep-sea vessels. Between them, the Centre and the State Government may have to extend diesel subsidy for deep-sea vessels at least in the interim, facilitate required training for the fishers, and also help identify the available species, storage and export markets.<\/p>\n

At present, private exporters, mainly from outside the State, are mostly at it. The State Government\u2019s promised efforts to make it as much more lucrative for the local vessel-owners and hence the fishers, too, is yet to bear fruit. The State Government has also been working on these areas, though the results have been slow in coming, and naturally so.<\/p>\n


\nMaritime security cooperation<\/strong><\/p>\n

The other segment involves the arrest and detention of Sri Lankan fishers in Indian waters. In a way, it has to be (only) a part of a reciprocal process, with the respective Governments deciding on the issue \u2013 depending on the success or failure of other aspects that would have to be covered at the fishers\u2019 level. On the Indian side, it involves the Centre engaging not just Tamil Nadu, which invariably is the affected party in most fishers\u2019 issues and arrests viz Sri Lanka, but also other south-east Indian States like Andhra Pradesh, Odhisa and the Union Territory administrations of Puducherry, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.<\/p>\n

Together, the Governments concerned in India will have to put in place a scheme that works systematically in identifying and releasing \u2018innocent fishers\u2019 from Sri Lanka, apprehended by the Coast Guard in the Indian waters. The short and straight 2010 Joint Statement provides the ground rule, but details may have to be worked out. Yet, genuine concerns of the security agencies of both countries cannot be \u2013 and should not be \u2013 wished away.<\/p>\n

On the Sri Lankan side, for instance, the SLN has always been wary \/ suspicious of the Tamil Nadu fishers\u2019 possibly helping Tamil militant groups in the country in the 30-year long period of war and violence. Though there was\/is no reason for the Sri Lankan Government and Navy to continue holding on to those suspicions, particularly in these long years after the \u2018Rajiv Gandhi assassination\u2019, the increasingly shriller voices from Tamil Nadu on post-war \u2018accountability issues\u2019 do not make for comforting news for either, particularly across the short stretch of the Palk Strait, and a pending case before the Indian Supreme Court on the legitimacy and legality of the IMBL, drawn through bilateral agreements in 1974 and 1976.<\/p>\n

The Indian Coast Guard and the Navy too have their tasks cut out in the region. There are one too many strategic assets along the south Indian coast, and they have to be extremely vigilant in these waters. The recent cases involving two Italian Marines killing Indian fishers in a shooting incident from aboard a ship that had gained illegal entry into the expansive Indian waters, and the arrest of overseas personnel on board a private security agency\u2019s ship, again without appropriate authorisation in Indian waters, are only a case in point.<\/p>\n

Simultaneously as the fishers and the Governments grabble with the livelihood issues of the fishers of the two countries, their maritime security agencies may have to consider their own options and cooperative measures if mutual arrests and detentions alone would be the dampener for keeping the waters in these parts calm and free of the incidents of a bilateral kind. Their current exchanges, mutual understanding and cooperation should go a long way in this regard, however complex their own negotiations could become, up to and after a point.<\/p>\n

Yet, it will all have to be a political decision, where communication at the highest political levels has also not been as regular and as effective as it used be and should have been \u2013 be it between New Delhi and Colombo, or between New Delhi and Chennai, or between Colombo and Jaffna, the capital of the Sri Lanka\u2019s Northern Province. With an elected Government headed by Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Chief Minister C V Wigneswaran, in Sri Lanka\u2019s Northern Province, the Centre there too would have to remember that \u2018Fisheries\u2019 is on the Concurrent List of the Constitution, and no one in the country has contested the same, either.<\/p>\n

With parliamentary polls in India and Sri Lanka\u2019s UNHRC troubles expected to come in the way of any early revival of any such high-level contacts, one possible way out in the interim \u2013 but otherwise too a feasible and necessary aspect — could be to take the fishers\u2019 issue on board the Trilateral Maritime Security Agreement, also involving Maldives. Slowly but surely and independent of other issues, political or otherwise, there has been considerable progress on trilateral maritime security cooperation between the nations, over the past months. <\/p>\n

Off and on, there have been fishers\u2019 issues of the India-Sri Lanka kind between Sri Lanka and Maldives, and occasionally between India and Maldives. Hence a security-related common approach to laying fresh ground rules for handling \u2018innocent fishers\u2019 needs to be arrived at, drawing from the progress\/success of the fishers\u2019 talks. If such consultations could be carried parallel to the fishers\u2019 talks (and independent of the progress made in the other), then it could clear avoidable misunderstanding, even if any were to arise, on that front.<\/p>\n

Considering that the trilateral maritime security cooperation arrangement is still a work-on-progress, and also the fact that the 1976 IMBL agreement involved all three nations in a way, continuing and extending the efforts to the fishers\u2019 issues could provide the right environment in every which way, to ensure that genuine security-related concerns of individual nations are addressed with understanding, care and caution. Sri Lanka has some, which from its eyes are real and genuine, and so are similar concerns of India \u2013 and of Maldives, to a greater or lesser extent.<\/p>\n

Towards a SAARC initiative<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is the context that defines the relevance and situation, and contextualising the mutual security concerns to the fishers\u2019 issue and the other way, too, should leave only the livelihood issues to be tackled, both for starters and later, too. In this context, India and Sri Lanka on the one hand, and with the common Maldivian neighbour otherwise, should consider taking up joint fishing and fishers\u2019 development and regulation in their waters, just as they have now done with maritime security in the very same waters.<\/p>\n

If the two\/three nations can decide to work together on sensitive security issues, there is nothing that could stop them from working together on fishing and fishers\u2019 development and regulation, too. It is at times said that the tri-nation maritime security arrangement can become model for extending to all SAARC nations, in stages and phases. While development and regulation have to be a part of the package, they will have to wait until the immediate issues are sorted out, to the satisfaction of all stake-holders.<\/p>\n

Under the 2010 Joint Statement, India and Sri Lanka \u201cagreed to continue with discussions, initiated in 2005, on the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on development and cooperation in the field of fisheries\u201d. The draft MoU had mentioned India helping Sri Lanka in the development of fisheries sector in many ways. The need for finalising the MoU found mention more recently when the Sri Lankan Fisheries Minister, Dr Rajitha Senaratne, met with his Indian counterpart Sharad Pawar, in Delhi, ahead of the fishers\u2019 talks in Chennai.<\/p>\n

Given the ever-depleting fish stocks in the adjoining seas owing to ever-increasing regional and global demand, and also poaching by extra-territorial commercial players, fishing and fishers\u2019 development and regulation among India, Maldives and Sri Lanka too could also thus become a first step towards a collective SAARC initiative on the subject. \u2018Poaching\u2019 under the trilateral maritime cooperation too thus falls under the ambit of maritime security cooperation. This however may have to wait, and be achieved in stages.<\/p>\n

Going beyond self-regulated ban<\/strong><\/p>\n

For starters now, the Indian fishers have stuck to their commitment to stay away from the Sri Lankan seas for 30 days, even if it commenced three days late, owing to the time required to \u2018educate\u2019 the fishers at the ground-level. Interestingly, the Gulf of Mannar fishers, too, have joined the self-regulated ban. The Tamil Nadu Government for its part is determined to help enforce the fishers\u2019 commitment on the ground, with the respective district administrations informing and educating the fishers on the non-use of banned gears and fishing methods.<\/p>\n

Yet, for the talks in Colombo, whenever held, the Tamil Nadu fishers should bear in mind that their northern Sri Lankan counterparts are talking not about \u2018poaching\u2019 in the Palk Strait, which the title of the 1974 agreement acknowledged as \u2018historic waters\u2019. Instead, the Tamil-speaking Northern Sri Lankan fishers are talking about their \u2018umbilical cord\u2019 brethren from across the IMBL resorting to \u2018poaching\u2019 in their end of the Palk Bay region, closer to the Sri Lankan coast.<\/p>\n

Tradition also has it that fishers despite going to wherever fish is, do not poach in one another\u2019s \u2018marked territory\u2019. Internal squabbles between villagers along the Tamil Nadu coast on similar lines, for instance, are a legend. So are the continual protests by artisanal fishers against \u2018poaching\u2019 by locally-owned and manned trawlers, also in the Tamil Nadu waters. In many cases, and not just along the southern Tamil Nadu coast, there have been continuing instances of fishing communities \u2018arresting\u2019 one another for \u2018poaching\u2019 and destroying fishing gear, mid-sea, and free those men only after payment of adequate compensation after hard negotiations \u2013 at times, extend up to days and weeks.<\/p>\n

The IMBL drawn under the 1974 agreement marks the \u2018internal waters\u2019 of India and Sri Lanka. It is a contemporary improvement and specification under contemporary circumstances. Notified under the UN scheme, it is inviolable, too. Against this no such reference is there in the 1976 bilateral agreement between India and Sri Lanka, or the latter that year, also involving Maldives. The Gulf of Mannar fishers in India and the Sri Lankan fishers outside of the Palk Bay region in the country do not enjoy the same situation as those in the Bay area.<\/p>\n

The specious argument centred on \u2018historic waters\u2019 in the India-Sri Lanka context would not hold otherwise, too. In the contemporary scheme of international law, game-hunters and traditional trading communities do not enjoy any cross-border freedom, after all. Even cross-border airways are not free, and may be the most regulated of \u2018em all. Violations in either case are punishable.<\/p>\n

Given the complexities of existing\/emerging maritime relations, poaching and piracy, and also the fast-depleting marine resources, sooner than later, international law could not escape reviewing whatever present arguments are there in defence of unauthorized IMBL crossing, even chasing the fish. Yet, there is no case for extending arguments based on \u2018sovereignty\u2019 or \u2018territorial integrity\u2019 to such IMBL crossings unless the nation concerned \u2013 which may otherwise be a concerned nation, too \u2013 see \u2018innocent fishers\u2019 and\/or right to \u2018innocent passage\u2019 as \u2018adversarial\u2019 action, often restricted to \u2018unfriendly nations\u2019 and\/or to unauthorised crossings, often by their Government agencies, vehicles and vessels.<\/p>\n

Until positive signs emerge from the Colombo talks about taking the negotiations forward for a permanent settlement to the fishers\u2019 issue, whenever it is held, cross-IMBL ban is likely to remain in place, either or both ways and greater clarity too could emerge. Pending those stages, the two national Governments would have to consider a self-regulation, if not outright indulgence, on the fishers crossing the IMBL, and basing their decision on the 2010 Joint Statement.<\/p>\n

If, for instance, the Tamil Nadu fishers are going to abide by the self-regulated ban, even if only for the promised 30 days, there may not be many of them for the SLN to arrest mid-sea, as in the past \u2013 and continuing into the present. This could lead to a piquant situation where the Indian Coast Guard would still have a substantial number of southern Sri Lanka (Sinhala) fishers crossing into Indian waters and claiming acknowledged right to \u2018innocent passage\u2019, with a political fallout in southern Sri Lanka.<\/p>\n

Incidentally, among the 25 Sri Lankan fishers that the ICG had taken into custody mid-sea after the Chennai talks, five were Tamils, all of them in five vessels and carrying five tonnes of fish on-board. This in turn adds a new turn \/ trend, and hence a new element, to the emerging multi-layered discourse on ending the fishers\u2019 stalemate, early on.<\/p>\n

In the past, Sri Lankan fishers caught in the Indian waters, with or without the catch, would often claim right to \u2018innocent passage\u2019, guaranteed under the international law, to which India too is a signatory. They would often be caught in waters far off the Palk Strait-Gulf of Mannar seas, given that most of them would have set sail from southern Sri Lanka. Not any more, or so it would seem.<\/p>\n

Lately, like this batch from Point Pedro, Sri Lankan fishers, setting off from the North, post-war, are being caught fishing in the Indian waters, not near the faraway Andamans, or off the Andhra Pradesh and Odhisa coasts up north, but in the immediate waters of the Gulf of Mannar and thereabouts. Not all of them are Tamils either, for the Government in Colombo to look the other way, and let the \u2018blood brethren\u2019 across the Palk Strait to settle it between them!<\/p>\n

Tweet<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by N Sathiya Moorthy Tamil Nadu\u2019s hosting of the much-publicised and even more needed\/delayed talks between the State\u2019s fisher representatives and their Sri Lankan counterparts on 27 January, followed by the local fishers commitment not to deploy vessels, gears and fishing methods banned in Sri Lanka for 30 days to prove their sincerity and seriousness …<\/p>\n

Continue reading ‘Chennai Talks on Indo-Lanka Fishing Dispute:What it achieved,What it did not achieve and What it did not Actually aim to Achieve.’ »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[12],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28143"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=28143"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28143\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28144,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28143\/revisions\/28144"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=28143"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=28143"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=28143"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}