Former Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan’s recent clarification regarding the Kirana Hills episode during Operation Sindoor has triggered strong reactions from military and diplomatic experts. 

His statement that India did not deliberately target the site, but that a loitering munition searching for radars near Sargodha may have inadvertently struck one of the hills, has added new dimensions to the debate.

Major General Dhruv C Katoch (Retd) described Chauhan’s remarks as highly revealing. He stressed that they confirmed India’s lack of intent to hit Kirana Hills, which is associated with nuclear facilities. 

He recalled that during the post-strike conference held after the May 10 developments, Air Marshal Bharti had clearly stated that the aim was not to hit the hills. This reinforced India’s stated position at the time.

Yet, Katoch emphasised that regardless of intent, Kirana Hills was indeed hit, and it was struck with remarkable accuracy. He noted that the precision of the impact was significant, and that this incident was the turning point which drew the United States into active involvement.

Prior to the strike near Kirana Hills, Washington had not shown deep interest in the confrontation, but the proximity to a sensitive nuclear-linked site altered external perceptions and engagement.

Former diplomat KP Fabian offered a complementary perspective. He explained that the Indian military’s account suggested a loitering drone had been deployed towards Sargodha, but after failing to locate a target and running out of energy, it wandered towards Kirana Hills.

Fabian pointed out that Pakistan might have interpreted this as a deliberate plan to strike at Kirana Hills, where nuclear weapons are believed to be stored either wholly or partly. He argued that the psychological impact of this perception was critical.

According to him, Pakistan may have been alarmed enough to seek a ceasefire, though the Indian side has stopped short of explicitly stating this conclusion.

Fabian highlighted that the ambiguity left room for interpretation, and that the incident influenced Pakistan’s decision-making in ways that went beyond the technical details of the strike.

Foreign affairs expert Waiel Awwad added a broader geopolitical context. He noted that Pakistan had been attempting to stabilise relations with India and had been sending messages through back channels. He stressed that India, while maintaining deterrence, was prepared for any eventuality.

Awwad linked the episode to India’s consistent stance on cross-border terrorism, underlining that New Delhi remains determined that Pakistan’s territory must not be used by terrorist groups to act against India. He suggested that the Kirana Hills incident reinforced India’s resolve and messaging in this regard.

The combined reactions of Katoch, Fabian and Awwad have reignited discussion on the sequence of events during Operation Sindoor. They highlight the role of precision munitions, the tension between intent and impact, and the wider diplomatic and strategic consequences that followed.

The incident near Kirana Hills illustrates how even an accidental strike near a nuclear-associated site can reshape perceptions, alter external involvement, and influence crisis behaviour between two nuclear-armed neighbours.

It also underscores India’s balancing act between demonstrating military capability and maintaining strategic restraint, while ensuring its core principle of deterring cross-border terrorism remains intact.

IANS