Psychological Precision or Propaganda? The Truth Behind India’s Claimed Strike on Kirana Hills

(DEFENCE SECUIRTY ASIA) — In the aftermath of India’s high-profile Operation Sindoor, a wave of claims emerged on social media suggesting that Indian missiles had successfully targeted Pakistan’s nuclear-linked Kirana Hills facility, sparking fears of a covert strategic escalation between two nuclear-armed states.

The allegation, which circulated widely on platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and Telegram, claimed that the Indian Air Force had launched precision strikes on the Kirana Hills complex near Sargodha in Punjab, a location long associated with the earliest phases of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons development.

However, Pakistani authorities swiftly and categorically rejected these claims, calling them “fabricated misinformation” designed to stir panic and create confusion at a time of heightened tensions.

A statement issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the media wing of the Pakistan Armed Forces, dismissed the reports as “entirely baseless and false,” asserting that no Indian missiles had struck any part of the Kirana Hills region or any facility linked to Pakistan’s strategic programs.

“The Armed Forces of Pakistan remain vigilant and fully capable of defending every inch of our territory,” the ISPR stated. “Any suggestion of a missile strike on Kirana Hills is completely untrue and part of a malicious disinformation campaign.”

Kirana Hills, located approximately 30 kilometers east of Sargodha in central Punjab, is historically significant for being one of the earliest sites used by Pakistan to conduct cold tests of nuclear devices in the 1980s.

Cold testing involves the triggering of nuclear bomb components without initiating a chain reaction—an essential phase in validating warhead design and miniaturization technologies without actual detonation.

From 1983 to 1990, a series of such tests were believed to have been carried out in underground tunnels dug into the rocky Kirana Hills, earning the site a legacy status in the narrative of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent.

Though the country’s operational nuclear testing took place in Chagai Hills in Balochistan in May 1998, when Pakistan responded to India’s Pokhran-II tests, Kirana Hills remains symbolically important as a cradle of the country’s early nuclear ambitions.

The allegations of an Indian strike on the site emerged in the days following Operation Sindoor, an Indian military campaign allegedly aimed at neutralizing militant infrastructure across the Line of Control (LoC) and deeper into Pakistani territory.

While Indian officials offered limited public confirmation of the details of the operation, the vacuum of verified information was quickly filled by speculative claims and unverified footage circulating online—some of which purported to show explosions in the Kirana region.

Analysts in Islamabad argue that the claims may be part of a deliberate misinformation campaign orchestrated by Indian information warfare units to create confusion, exaggerate operational success, and signal a strategic message to Pakistan’s security establishment.

“This is textbook hybrid warfare,” said a senior Pakistani security analyst who requested anonymity. “Using social media to falsely claim a strike on a sensitive strategic location like Kirana Hills is intended to rattle nerves and provoke a reaction.”

Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also weighed in, stating that the claims of a missile strike on Kirana Hills are “irresponsible, provocative, and part of a disinformation strategy that threatens regional stability.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, also addressed the reports amid concerns of a radiation leak following the alleged strike.

In a rare public clarification, an IAEA spokesperson told media outlets, “There is no evidence or report of any radiation leak or incident from any nuclear facility in Pakistan, including those in the Sargodha region.”

This statement effectively refuted online narratives suggesting that the alleged strike had triggered a containment breach or radiation release at Kirana Hills.

Indian military officials also issued denials.

In a press interaction, Air Marshal A.K. Bharti, Director General of Air Operations, was quoted as saying, “Thank you for telling us that Kirana Hills houses some nuclear installation. We did not know about it. And we have not hit Kirana Hills, whatever is there.”

While some viewed this remark as evasive, it was nonetheless interpreted as a denial of any deliberate targeting of the nuclear-associated facility.

Kirana Hills itself, while no longer at the forefront of Pakistan’s nuclear infrastructure, remains part of the wider constellation of strategic sites that support the country’s deterrent.

Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program is managed by the Strategic Plans Division (SPD) under the National Command Authority (NCA), with research and development conducted by organizations such as the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) and the Khan Research Laboratories (KRL).

Operational deployment and integration of nuclear delivery systems fall under the purview of the military’s Strategic Forces Command, which oversees both land-based ballistic missile units and dual-capable aircraft wings.

Key facilities supporting Pakistan’s nuclear program include the Kahuta Research Laboratories near Rawalpindi (believed to house uranium enrichment centrifuges), the Khushab nuclear complex (plutonium production reactors), and missile storage and development sites in areas like Fateh Jang, Chakwal, and Gujranwala.

While Kirana Hills is not publicly known to host any operational warheads or delivery systems, its legacy as a foundational testing ground renders it symbolically potent in narratives surrounding Pakistan’s nuclear resilience.

Therefore, allegations of an Indian strike on Kirana—especially if untrue—carry dangerous implications.

They risk miscalculation, raise the temperature between two nuclear rivals, and place public pressure on leaderships to respond—potentially spiraling into escalation.

India, analysts argue, may have had multiple objectives behind allowing or amplifying such disinformation to proliferate.

Firstly, it serves to project the illusion of strategic reach and precision capability against deeply embedded Pakistani nuclear infrastructure, thereby bolstering domestic political narratives and boosting morale among hawkish constituencies.

Secondly, by suggesting that even symbolic sites like Kirana Hills are vulnerable, it aims to psychologically unsettle Pakistan’s strategic community and possibly test Islamabad’s reaction thresholds.

Thirdly, the disinformation may be intended to obscure or compensate for the limited tactical achievements of Operation Sindoor itself—shifting the media focus from ground realities to imagined triumphs.

And finally, such narratives allow Indian information warfare actors to influence global perception by framing Pakistan’s strategic deterrent as penetrable, thereby undermining its credibility in the eyes of international observers and regional players.

International observers, including think tanks and strategic affairs institutes, have warned that unverified claims involving strategic assets must be treated with extreme caution.

“The danger of misinformation in a nuclearized environment is that it compresses decision timelines and erodes trust in formal channels of communication,” according to a report.

In the digital age, where disinformation can travel faster than missiles, the episode surrounding the Kirana Hills rumor is a stark reminder of the risks posed by weaponized narratives.

For Pakistan, the rebuttal was necessary not only to reassure its domestic audience but also to contain any international fallout that could result from misinterpretations of the strike claims.

Pakistan’s strategic posture remains grounded in credible minimum deterrence—an approach that emphasizes survivability, assured second-strike capabilities, and restraint.

In this context, preserving the credibility and security of strategic sites like Kirana Hills—whether operational or symbolic—remains central to deterrence stability.

As of now, both Pakistani and Indian officials have denied that any such strike occurred, while the IAEA’s public reassurance has further calmed fears of any nuclear incident.

But the episode raises broader questions about the weaponization of perception, the role of social media in shaping conflict narratives, and the imperative for responsible statecraft in an increasingly volatile region.

In the final analysis, even a false rumor about a nuclear strike can trigger real-world consequences.

And that, perhaps more than anything, is the most dangerous strike of all.

— DEFENCE SECURITY ASIA