Bolivia Exposes Kailasa Land Deals

A Phantom Nation’s Quest for Land in the Amazon

A controversial Indian guru sought refuge from serious allegations by founding a phantom nation. Nithyananda, a self-styled Hindu spiritual leader, established the so-called United States of Kailasa in 2019. His creation followed his departure from India amid accusations concerning child abduction at his religious commune and the sexual assault of a disciple. Kailasa, however, exists only in the pronouncements of its founder and followers. No existing country nor the United Nations officially recognises it as a sovereign state. Despite this lack of legitimacy, Nithyananda’s organisation embarked on ambitious efforts to secure territory. Representatives pursued land acquisition across Latin America, presenting significant financial offers.

Initial attempts to purchase land in Paraguay and Ecuador proved unsuccessful. A subsequent agreement forged with the US city of Newark also collapsed. City officials rescinded the “cultural partnership” after discovering Kailasa was not a genuine country. Undeterred, the organisation turned its attention towards Bolivia, targeting vulnerable Indigenous communities deep within the Amazon basin. This latest chapter reveals a persistent campaign to transform a conceptual nation into a physical reality, raising profound legal and ethical questions. The group’s methods involve complex contracts and promises of investment, presented to often isolated communities. This pursuit highlights the challenges remote Indigenous groups face when confronted by well-resourced external actors promoting outlandish schemes. The Kailasa project continues its search for a physical home.

Surreal Deals Exposed in Bolivian Rainforest

The phantom nation focused its land acquisition strategy on Bolivia in late 2024. During this time, envoys from the United States of Kailasa secured exceptionally long-term land lease agreements with no fewer than four separate Indigenous communities. Bolivian newspaper El Deber brought these secretive activities into the public eye the following month. Journalist Silvana Vicenti documented the astonishing nature of the agreements. One contract involved a representative for the Baure Indigenous people. This delegate granted Kailasa a lease for 60,000 hectares of rainforest territory. The agreement stipulated an annual payment of just $108,000 (£81,910) for this vast area. Another deal engaged a spokesperson for the Cayubaba Indigenous group.

This pact leased 31,000 hectares (76,600 acres) for an annual sum of $55,800 (£42,300). The contracts extended for a staggering 1,000 years. They included clauses ensuring continuous automatic renewal, effectively making the leases perpetual. Vicenti expressed disbelief at the documents' contents, describing the proposed arrangements as irrational and akin to a surreal narrative. The low sums offered for extensive land control underscore the potentially exploitative nature of the agreements targeting these Amazonian communities. The audacity of the terms shocked observers familiar with land rights issues in the region. These revelations prompted immediate scrutiny from legal experts and Indigenous rights organisations within Bolivia.

Image Credit - The Guardian

Kailasa Seeks Absolute Sovereignty Through Leases

The agreements negotiated by Kailasa’s representatives aimed for far more than simple land use. Documents reviewed by The Guardian revealed clauses granting the fictitious nation comprehensive control over vast swathes of territory. Kailasa would exercise absolute sovereignty within the domain of each participating Indigenous group. This control extended remarkably far, encompassing authority over the airspace above the leased land. Subsurface resources also fell under the proposed jurisdiction of the phantom state. Indigenous groups party to these pacts made significant commitments beyond land access. The communities pledged to legally defend Kailasa in any conflicts that might arise. Signatories agreed to advocate for Kailasa’s recognition as an autonomous and free nation on the world stage. They offered guarantees of protection against any hostile actions directed towards the entity.

Support for Kailasa’s applications to international bodies, explicitly naming the United Nations, formed part of the obligations. The journalist, Silvana Vicenti, who uncovered the deals, analysed the power structure outlined in the contracts. Vicenti described the proposed arrangement as analogous to a monarchy. Within this structure, the Indigenous populations would effectively become subjects under Kailasa’s rule. The terms suggested a complete transfer of self-determination from the Indigenous groups to the foreign entity, disguised as a simple lease agreement. The potential implications for Indigenous autonomy were profound.

Exploitative Contracts Violate Bolivian Law

Legal experts quickly condemned the agreements as fundamentally flawed and exploitative. Jhovana Morales works with Fundación Tierra, an organisation dedicated to supporting Indigenous land rights issues. Morales labelled the documents clear violations of multiple Bolivian laws and regulations. The perpetuity clause drew particular criticism. Bolivian national law strictly limits contract durations. Agreements cannot typically exceed 10 years. The 1,000-year leases, combined with automatic renewal clauses, directly contravened this legal framework. Morales unequivocally stated the arrangements constituted fraud. Lingering questions surrounded the entire affair, Morales underscored. How Kailasa’s proponents gained access to these often remote Amazonian communities remained unclear.

The process by which discussions commenced with segments of the Indigenous population required further investigation. The Bolivian government’s own position initially appeared unresolved following the revelations. Authorities later issued communications explicitly rejecting any form of association or formal links with the non-existent country. This denial followed public scrutiny and media reports detailing the nature of the contracts. The government sought to distance itself from the controversial dealings, emphasizing Kailasa’s lack of legitimate status. The affair highlighted vulnerabilities in protecting Indigenous territories from sophisticated fraudulent schemes. The need for greater oversight and support for remote communities became evident.

Presidential Photo Sparks Official Explanations

Amid the unfolding controversy, an image surfaced depicting Bolivian President Luis Arce. The photograph showed Arce receiving a book titled United States of Kailasa. A woman dressed in traditional saffron robes presented the volume to him. The circulation of this picture complicated the government's attempts to distance itself from the fictitious nation. President Arce offered no personal statement or commentary regarding the image or the broader Kailasa situation. Katherine Calderón, Arce’s migration director, provided the administration's official explanation. Calderón stated the photograph originated during an Indigenous coalition gathering held in October 2024.

The woman in the picture reportedly requested the photo opportunity with President Arce at this event. Calderón asserted that such requests are commonplace during public gatherings attended by the president. This explanation aimed to portray the interaction as incidental, lacking any political significance or endorsement of Kailasa. The government maintained its stance of non-recognition and disavowed any formal relationship. Despite these official clarifications, the photograph fuelled speculation and debate within Bolivia concerning the extent of Kailasa’s influence and access to high-level officials. The incident underscored the challenges governments face managing optics when dealing with unconventional groups employing sophisticated outreach tactics. Public perception remained a key battleground.

Image Credit - The Guardian

Expulsions Follow Land Lease Revelations

Following the public exposure of the land deals, the Bolivian government took more decisive action. On March 24, 2025, Migration Director Katherine Calderón announced the expulsion of 20 foreign nationals. These individuals, connected with the fraudulent Kailasa nation, held various citizenships, including Chinese, American, British, and Indian passports. Reports indicated the expelled persons entered Bolivia legally under tourist visas. Their activities, however, allegedly focused on acquiring real estate within Indigenous territories. This move appeared as a direct response to the revelations concerning the exploitative land lease agreements. Yet, this measure attracted criticism from some quarters.

Professionals and specialists, including legal expert Jhovana Morales, questioned the swiftness of the expulsions. Critics argued the administration should have conducted a more thorough investigation into the complex circumstances before removing potential key witnesses or participants. Morales suggested valuable information might be lost by deporting these individuals prematurely. A deeper probe could potentially uncover the full network behind Kailasa’s operations in Bolivia and the specific roles played by those expelled. The government’s action, while demonstrating resolve, faced scrutiny over its potential impact on achieving a complete understanding of the situation. Balancing decisive action with comprehensive investigation proved difficult.

Journalists Face Intimidation Amid Kailasa Coverage

The exposure of Kailasa’s activities in Bolivia prompted not only official action but also alarming responses directed at the press. Several Bolivian journalism organisations issued a collective report condemning acts of intimidation. These threats targeted reporters covering the unfolding developments surrounding the fictitious nation and its land deals. Individuals affiliated with Kailasa allegedly threatened media personnel directly. These menacing communications followed the publication of initial reports detailing the controversial lease agreements. The joint statement from media groups highlighted the serious implications for press freedom in the country.

Journalists investigating sensitive issues, particularly involving potentially powerful or clandestine organisations, require protection. The intimidation tactics aimed to suppress further reporting and scrutiny of Kailasa's operations. This aggressive pushback suggested the high stakes involved for the organisation. The threats underscored the lengths Kailasa’s proponents would go to protect their interests and narrative. Such actions against the media often signal attempts to conceal wrongdoing or avoid accountability. The Bolivian press bodies called for guarantees of safety for journalists performing their professional duties. Ensuring the free flow of information remained crucial for understanding the full scope of Kailasa’s influence and methods within Bolivia. The situation presented a test for both media resilience and governmental protection of journalistic freedom.

Nithyananda Addresses Critics; Followers Justify Deals

Nithyananda himself eventually addressed the controversy, although his precise location remains unknown. Rumours and unsubstantiated social media claims even suggested his passing, adding another layer of obscurity. He delivered an address via live video stream, acting in his self-proclaimed capacity as leader of the imaginary nation. Nithyananda confronted what he termed misleading assertions spread by supposed opposition forces. News companies formed part of these opposing groups, according to his narrative. Nithyananda described these media channels as possessing a bias rooted in "Hinduphobia". These outlets spread negative information driven by malicious intent, his address implied. The speech notably omitted any direct mention of Bolivia or specific references to the Andean country by name. Concurrently, videos emerged on platforms like YouTube.

Followers publicly shared admissions regarding their involvement in the land lease agreements. Some commentators interpreted these admissions as driven primarily by financial motivations. These observers suggested supporters sought lucrative outcomes through the development of the fabricated country. Kailasa’s backers countered this narrative. They emphasised the purported positive aspects of their endeavours. Supporters framed the agreements as supportive of environmental conservation efforts within the Amazon. They also highlighted the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Indigenous citizens. These justifications presented Kailasa’s actions as charitable initiatives aimed at helping local communities. Official channels remained silent; neither Bolivian authorities nor Kailasa representatives responded to reporter inquiries.

Indigenous Group Claims Coercion and Deceit

One Indigenous organisation directly implicated in the land deals issued a forceful rebuttal. The Multi-ethnic Indigenous Territory II represents members of the Ese Ejja people. Some community officials from this group participated in signing a lease agreement with Kailasa representatives. The organisation released written statements asserting these officials fell victim to dishonest practices. Proponents of the false nation employed coercion tactics, the statement claimed. Kailasa’s agents sought signatures fraudulently. The group alleged financial incentives formed part of the manipulative strategy used against unwitting community members. This activity amounted to corruption, the statement suggested. Officials were allegedly misled or pressured into signing documents they did not fully comprehend or genuinely support. The organisation stressed its unwavering position regarding its ancestral lands.

Selling or renting their heritage remained completely unacceptable. Previous generations passed down this territory, holding immense cultural and spiritual significance. Questioning this fundamental principle could provoke hostile reactions, the statement warned. These people feel strongly about defending their identity and patrimony. This firm stance directly contradicted the narrative presented by Kailasa supporters, who framed the deals as mutually beneficial arrangements. The claims of deceit add another disturbing dimension to Kailasa’s methods, highlighting the vulnerability of Indigenous communities to manipulative external actors promising benefits while concealing exploitative intentions.

Unanswered Questions and Lingering Vulnerabilities

Despite government expulsions and Indigenous denunciations, many aspects of the Kailasa affair in Bolivia remain shrouded in uncertainty. The full extent of the phantom nation's network within the country requires further clarification. How its representatives identified and targeted specific Indigenous groups warrants deeper investigation. The precise motivations driving Kailasa’s persistent quest for land, beyond the establishment of a physical base for Nithyananda and followers, remain speculative. Financial gain, as suggested by some commentators regarding follower involvement, might play a significant role.

The Bolivian government’s response, while including expulsions and official disavowals, faces ongoing scrutiny. Critics argue more comprehensive investigations are necessary to fully understand the operation and prevent future incursions. Ensuring the long-term protection of Indigenous territories against similar fraudulent schemes presents a considerable challenge. The incident exposed potential weaknesses in legal frameworks and oversight mechanisms designed to safeguard vulnerable communities. Strengthening support systems and empowering Indigenous groups to navigate complex negotiations with external entities appears crucial. The Kailasa episode serves as a stark reminder of the unconventional threats that can emerge, testing national sovereignty and the rights of marginalised populations. Vigilance and proactive measures seem essential to prevent exploitation disguised as investment or aid. The final chapter of Kailasa’s Bolivian venture may still be unwritten.