Congress MP Shashi Tharoor on Thursday described the new Parliament building as a “soulless conference centre”, arguing that its architecture has diminished the intimacy, informal exchanges and cross-party camaraderie that were characteristic of the old Parliament House. Speaking at the launch of journalist and author Sobhana K Nair’s book Housing the Republic: A Biography of the Indian Parliament, Tharoor said the physical distancing created by the new building’s design could even be viewed as a metaphor for the growing polarisation of Indian politics.
The four-time Thiruvananthapuram MP acknowledged that governments may want to leave a physical imprint on the national capital, but questioned whether all such transformations were necessary or improved the functioning of democratic institutions.
‘Distancing mirrors political polarisation’
Tharoor said the enormous ceilings and layout of the new chambers made them less conducive to personal interaction among parliamentarians.
He contrasted this with the older chambers, where MPs sat closer together and had greater opportunities to speak informally with colleagues, including those from rival political parties.
According to Tharoor, the fan-shaped arrangement in the new Parliament creates a sense of distance between members. He suggested that the change was striking because it had coincided with an era in which political divisions had become increasingly pronounced.
The new Parliament building was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in May 2023 and became the primary venue for parliamentary proceedings later that year. The four-storey structure has larger Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha chambers, modern technological facilities and substantially more seating capacity than the old building.
It forms a key part of the Central Vista redevelopment undertaken by the Modi government in the heart of New Delhi.
Central Hall absence comes under criticism
Tharoor identified the absence of a Central Hall as one of the most significant differences between the two buildings.
The Central Hall of the old Parliament was not merely a ceremonial space. For decades, it served as an informal meeting ground where serving and former parliamentarians, political leaders and journalists could interact outside the formal proceedings of the two Houses.
Tharoor argued that such interactions helped foster collegiality across political lines, something he believes has become increasingly scarce.
He said the new complex did not provide the same encouragement for conversation and informal exchanges, linking the architectural transformation to a broader decline in conviviality among parliamentarians belonging to different parties.
However, Tharoor acknowledged one practical improvement. The old chambers could be uncomfortable because MPs seated away from the aisles often had to squeeze past colleagues to enter or leave their seats. The new seating arrangements have eliminated that inconvenience, he said.
Tharoor raises concern over 850-member Lok Sabha
The Congress MP also sounded a warning over the possibility of the Lok Sabha eventually expanding to around 850 members following a future delimitation exercise.
The new Lok Sabha chamber has been designed with substantially greater capacity than the old one, providing physical space for a larger House. Tharoor, however, questioned whether accommodating hundreds more MPs would allow meaningful debate to survive.
He argued that an excessively large House risked turning parliamentarians into strangers rather than colleagues capable of substantive discussion and deliberation.
In a sharply worded comparison, Tharoor warned against Parliament becoming a gathering where hundreds of members merely offer uniform approval when leaders make announcements, rather than an institution characterised by disagreement, scrutiny and debate.
If Parliament moved in that direction, he argued, it would fundamentally depart from the institution’s democratic purpose.
Brittas questions substance of Parliament
Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas, who also participated in the discussion, was similarly critical of the new building, saying he did not like its aesthetics.
Brittas argued, however, that the larger issue was not the appearance of the structure but the quality of parliamentary functioning within it.
He said constructing a new building had little meaning if the substance of parliamentary debate continued to decline. According to him, the quality of parliamentary discourse had fallen sharply, making questions about debate, accountability and legislative scrutiny more important than the physical surroundings.
Brittas also raised questions about expenditure on the new Parliament building. Referring to the original Parliament House — then known as the Council House — he noted that its construction cost was recorded at around Rs 83 lakh.
He claimed that when he sought information about the final expenditure on the new building, he was told that the figure could not be disclosed.
Book traces Parliament’s century-long journey
The discussion took place during the launch of Housing the Republic, which examines Parliament House not simply as a piece of architecture but as an institution that has witnessed India's political evolution.
Published by Bloomsbury, Nair’s book traces the story of the parliamentary complex from its origins in 1919 through the colonial period, Independence and more than seven decades of republican politics, culminating in the shift to the new Parliament building in 2023.
For Tharoor and Brittas, the transition between the two buildings has also opened a larger question: whether a modern and more spacious Parliament can preserve the informal relationships, substantive debate and political exchange that are central to a functioning legislature.