Track One diplomacy is the official and formal diplomacy conducted by high-level representatives of

governments or international organizations. It aims to achieve political agreements, ceasefires, or peace

treaties. Track One diplomacy can be effective in addressing the root causes of a conflict, creating a legal
framework for peace, and providing incentives or sanctions for compliance. However, Track One
diplomacy can also face challenges such as lack of trust, legitimacy, or representation among the parties,
rigid positions or agendas, and external pressures or interference.

Track Two diplomacy is the unofficial and informal diplomacy conducted by non-governmental actors
such as academics, religious leaders, civil society groups, or former officials. It aims to build trust,
understanding, and relationships among the parties, and to explore creative and innovative solutions for
the conflict. Track Two diplomacy can be effective in addressing the human and psychological dimensions
of a conflict, creating a conducive environment for dialogue, and generating new ideas or perspectives.
However, Track Two diplomacy can also face challenges such as lack of coordination, recognition, or
influence among the parties, limited resources or capacity, and security or ethical risks.

Track One and a Half diplomacy is a hybrid form of diplomacy that involves unofficial third parties
facilitating or mediating between official representatives of conflicting groups or states. It aims to bridge
the gap between Track One and Track Two diplomacy, and to enhance the chances of resolving the
conflict. Track One and a Half diplomacy can be effective in addressing the communication and
negotiation challenges of a conflict, creating a safe and neutral space for dialogue, and providing
technical or logistical support. However, Track One and a Half diplomacy can also face challenges such as
maintaining impartiality, credibility, or confidentiality, balancing the interests and expectations of the
parties, and managing the transition from unofficial to official diplomacy.

Now, let me apply this framework to the Hardeep Singh case, which is a complex and multi-layered
conflict involving the issues of Sikh separatism, terrorism, human rights, and bilateral relations between
Canada and India. The case has escalated into a diplomatic crisis after Canada accused India of being
linked to the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian Sikh leader and a vocal advocate for Khalistan, a
separate homeland for Sikhs. India has denied any involvement in the killing, and called the allegations
absurd. India has also labelled Hardeep Singh Nijjar as a terrorist, and accused him of being the
mastermind behind several violent attacks in Punjab, India’s northern state where most Sikhs live.
Canada has refused to extradite Hardeep Singh Nijjar to India, and has granted him citizenship and
protection. The case has strained the relations between the two countries, and has sparked protests and
tensions among the Sikh communities in both countries.

To resolve this crisis, I suggest that the following steps can be taken by using different tracks of
diplomacy:

Track One diplomacy: The governments of Canada and India should engage in official and formal
dialogue to address the political and legal aspects of the case, and to seek a mutually acceptable
solution. The dialogue should be based on respect, transparency, and cooperation, and should avoid any
accusations, threats, or interference. The dialogue should also involve the relevant international
organizations, such as the United Nations, the Commonwealth, or the International Criminal Court, to
ensure the compliance with the international law and human rights standards. The dialogue should aim
to achieve the following outcomes:

· A joint investigation into the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, and the identification and
prosecution of the perpetrators, regardless of their nationality or affiliation.

· A review of the evidence and charges against Hardeep Singh Nijjar, and the determination of his
legal status and rights, according to the due process and the extradition treaty between Canada
and India.

· A recognition and condemnation of the acts of terrorism and violence committed by any group
or individual in the name of Khalistan, and a commitment to prevent and combat such acts in
the future.

· A reaffirmation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both countries, and a respect for
the diversity and pluralism of their societies.

· A restoration and enhancement of the bilateral relations between Canada and India, and a
cooperation on the areas of mutual interest and benefit, such as trade, education, culture, or
security.

Track Two diplomacy: The non-governmental actors of Canada and India, such as the academics,
religious leaders, civil society groups, or former officials, should engage in unofficial and informal
dialogue to address the social and psychological aspects of the case, and to seek a common
understanding and vision for the future. The dialogue should be based on trust, empathy, and dialogue,
and should avoid any stereotypes, prejudices, or hatred. The dialogue should also involve the
representatives of the Sikh communities in both countries, to ensure their participation and
representation. The dialogue should aim to achieve the following outcomes:

· A mutual acknowledgement and appreciation of the history, culture, and identity of the Sikhs,
and their contributions and challenges in both countries.

· A mutual recognition and respect of the diversity and complexity of the Sikh views and
aspirations, and their rights and responsibilities as citizens of both countries.

· A mutual exploration and discussion of the concept and feasibility of Khalistan, and its
implications and consequences for the Sikhs and the others in both countries.

· A mutual development and promotion of the values and principles of peace, justice, and
coexistence, and their application to the case and the broader context.

· A mutual creation and dissemination of the positive and constructive narratives and messages
 about the case and the relations between Canada and India, and their impact on the public
opinion and the media.

Track One and a Half diplomacy: The unofficial third parties, such as the Carter Center, which is an
example of an organization that practices Track One and a Half diplomacy, led by former US President
Jimmy Carter, should engage in facilitating or mediating between the official and unofficial actors of
Canada and India, to address the communication and negotiation challenges of the case, and to seek a
sustainable and comprehensive resolution. The facilitation or mediation should be based on impartiality,
credibility, and confidentiality, and should avoid any bias, pressure, or manipulation. The facilitation or
mediation should also involve the relevant stakeholders, such as the victims, the witnesses, the experts,
or the media, to ensure the inclusiveness and comprehensiveness of the process. The facilitation or
mediation should aim to achieve the following outcomes:

· A coordination and cooperation among the different actors and tracks of diplomacy, and a
harmonization and integration of their goals and strategies.

· A provision of a safe and neutral space for dialogue, and a support of the technical and logistical
aspects of the process.

· A identification and analysis of the interests and needs of the parties, and a generation and
evaluation of the options and alternatives for the resolution.

· A facilitation and encouragement of the dialogue and negotiation among the parties, and a
resolution and prevention of any conflicts or disputes that may arise during the process.

· A formulation and implementation of the agreement or the outcome of the resolution, and a
monitoring and evaluation of its effectiveness and impact.