New Parliament building lacks intimacy, says Tharoor; MPs debate design and democracy

Congress leader Shashi Tharoor on Thursday described the new Parliament building as a "soulless conference centre", arguing that its design discourages informal conversation and mirrors the growing polarisation in Indian politics. He was speaking at the launch of journalist Sobhana K Nair's book, 'Housing the Republic: A Biography of the Indian Parliament'.

Mr. Tharoor, a four-time MP from Thiruvananthapuram, said the building's high ceilings "completely destroy any possibility of intimacy". He contrasted it with the old Parliament chambers, which he said had a "coziness" that encouraged dialogue and exchange. "There is a distancing in the layout, sort of fan-like layout. There is a distancing, which almost seems to be a metaphor for the polarisation of our politics," he said.

The new Parliament building, inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2023, is part of the Central Vista redevelopment project aimed at replacing colonial-era structures. It has expanded seating capacity and modern facilities, but critics argue that these changes have come at the cost of meaningful parliamentary engagement.

Mr. Tharoor specifically lamented the absence of a Central Hall, where MPs, former legislators, observers, and journalists could interact informally. "The soullessness of the place, the lack of intimacy, the lack of encouragement of conversation, the absence of a Central Hall... all of these factors speak both to a lack of collegiality and conviviality across party lines," he said.

The Congress leader also warned against the proposed expansion of the Lok Sabha to 850 members. He said that although the new building has physical space for more MPs, the move could undermine the quality of debate. In a sharp comparison, he said MPs might be reduced to "a whole bunch of strangers" who would "ritually, like the Chinese People's Consultative Congress, be thumping their tables in uniform applause when the great leader makes announcements." He added, "If that is the intention, then that is really no longer what we've all understood by the purpose of a Parliament."

Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas, also a panellist at the event, was equally critical. He dismissed the building's aesthetics, saying he does not like "anything of it". For him, the larger issue is the decline in parliamentary discourse. "Having a new building doesn't make any sense to the Parliament or Parliament discourse. What is the content, substance of the Parliament? That is much more important," he said, adding that parliamentary debate had "plummeted to the lowest".

Mr. Brittas also questioned the lack of transparency over the new building's cost. He noted that the old Parliament, originally known as the Council House, was built during the British Raj for ₹83 lakh. When he asked about the new building's expenditure, he said the response was that it was "a secret".

The new Parliament building, with its four storeys and state-of-the-art facilities, was designed to accommodate a larger legislature. However, the criticisms raised by Mr. Tharoor and Mr. Brittas highlight a broader debate about whether the physical space of a legislature influences the quality of its democracy. While the government has framed the new building as a symbol of a self-reliant India, these MPs argue that the true measure of a Parliament lies in its deliberative functions rather than its architecture.