In the shadow of Operation Sindoor, a high-profile Indian military action, a storm of controversy erupted online. Claims that Indian missiles had struck Pakistan’s nuclear-linked Kirana Hills facility set off alarms, not just across South Asia but among nuclear policy analysts worldwide. The alleged strike—never confirmed by either side—raises deeper concerns about information warfare, strategic stability, and the vulnerabilities of perception in a nuclear-armed standoff.
The allegation spread rapidly on social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and Telegram. Users posted unverified videos purporting to show explosions and missile trails near the Kirana Hills, located about 30 kilometers east of Sargodha in Pakistan’s Punjab province. According to these posts, the Indian Air Force executed precision strikes against a facility historically tied to Pakistan’s earliest nuclear developments.
Pakistani authorities, however, were swift in their rebuttal. The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the media wing of the Pakistan Armed Forces, labeled the claims “entirely baseless and false.” A statement issued shortly after the rumors began circulating said, “The Armed Forces of Pakistan remain vigilant and fully capable of defending every inch of our territory. Any suggestion of a missile strike on Kirana Hills is completely untrue and part of a malicious disinformation campaign.”
Historically, the Kirana Hills hold symbolic value in Pakistan’s nuclear narrative. From 1983 to 1990, the site was used to conduct cold tests—non-explosive trials of nuclear weapon components. These underground tests helped refine warhead designs and miniaturization technologies without triggering nuclear reactions. Though operational nuclear testing moved to Chagai Hills in Balochistan in 1998, Kirana remains etched in the collective memory of Pakistan’s strategic establishment.
That legacy made the site a potent target—not for military strikes, but for information warfare. The timing of the allegations, so soon after Operation Sindoor, only amplified their perceived credibility. The operation itself remains shrouded in ambiguity, with Indian officials providing sparse details. This vacuum was quickly filled by online narratives, some suggesting a bold extension of Indian military reach into strategic Pakistani territory.
“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.”
The Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs echoed these concerns, calling the claims “irresponsible, provocative, and part of a disinformation strategy that threatens regional stability.”
Even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, weighed in. Responding to speculative fears of a radiation leak, an IAEA spokesperson clarified, “There is no evidence or report of any radiation leak or incident from any nuclear facility in Pakistan, including those in the Sargodha region.”
From India’s side, the denials were similarly categorical. Air Marshal A.K. Bharti, Director General of Air Operations, said during a press interaction, “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.” His comment, though seemingly flippant, functioned as a firm denial.
Yet ambiguity lingers. Analysts argue that whether or not a strike occurred, the spread of such a narrative may serve multiple Indian objectives:
Strategic Signaling: By fostering a perception of capability and reach, India bolsters its domestic narrative of military superiority and strategic confidence.
Psychological Pressure: Implying that even symbolic nuclear sites are vulnerable can unnerve Pakistan’s strategic planners and test reaction thresholds.
Media Manipulation: Shifting focus from the limited tactical outcomes of Operation Sindoor to an exaggerated strategic victory may serve both domestic and international messaging goals.
Deterrence Undermining: Suggesting penetrability of strategic assets subtly challenges the credibility of Pakistan’s deterrence, potentially influencing global perceptions.
Pakistan’s nuclear command structure, managed under the National Command Authority (NCA) and operationalized by the Strategic Plans Division (SPD), relies on survivability and assured retaliation—principles embedded in its credible minimum deterrence doctrine. Facilities like Kirana Hills, while not part of the active deterrent infrastructure, contribute symbolically to this credibility.
Key operational facilities include Kahuta (uranium enrichment), Khushab (plutonium production), and missile sites in Fateh Jang, Chakwal, and Gujranwala. These sites are believed to house actual deployment and storage assets, unlike Kirana Hills, which now functions more as a historical landmark within Pakistan’s nuclear framework.
Still, symbolism matters—especially in the volatile nuclear context of South Asia. A fabricated strike on Kirana Hills, if believed, could force Pakistan into escalatory posturing or even kinetic response, risking a spiral into actual conflict.
This is the peril of perception warfare.
“The danger of misinformation in a nuclearized environment is that it compresses decision timelines and erodes trust in formal channels of communication,” said a recent report by a prominent international think tank.
In the digital age, falsehoods can outpace missiles. Within hours of the first posts, international media began picking up the story, amplifying its reach and potential impact. Analysts and citizens alike scrambled for clarity as government agencies rushed to control the narrative.
For Pakistan, swift rebuttals served a dual purpose: calming domestic audiences and assuring international stakeholders. The ISPR’s message, bolstered by the Foreign Ministry and IAEA, was clear—there was no strike, no damage, and no cause for alarm.
India’s restraint in not formally acknowledging or commenting extensively on the Operation Sindoor claims may also indicate an awareness of the risks involved in fueling the controversy. Acknowledging the strike—especially if it didn’t occur—could compel Pakistan to act. Denying it too forcefully might concede ground in the information war.
Thus, both sides walk a tightrope.
Strategic communication is now a front line in itself. What is said, unsaid, or implied can carry as much weight as actual troop movements or missile launches. In this landscape, the Kirana Hills episode becomes more than a flashpoint—it’s a case study.
The incident underscores the growing role of social media in shaping modern warfare narratives. Unverified videos, amateur analysis, and partisan amplification can create an alternative reality with tangible geopolitical consequences.
India and Pakistan, both seasoned in managing high-stakes crises, now face the added challenge of managing digital disinformation. Their failure to do so could one day trigger consequences that no war game or scenario planning ever fully anticipated.
The Kirana Hills controversy should serve as a wake-up call. As the fog of war gives way to the fog of the feed, statecraft must evolve to navigate not just borders and battlefields, but bandwidths and belief systems.
