Q.If Rajasthan, MP, UP, Bihar (Hindi-speaking) combined into one State, would it be in tune with federalism? Give arguments.

The chapter explains that India's States were created "as far as possible" on shared language AND region/culture, and that India's actual trend has been to divide large States further (Gujarat/Maharashtra, Punjab/Haryana, MP/UP/Bihar in 2000, AP/Telangana in 2014) for distinct identity and administrative efficiency — not to merge them. …

The chapter explains that after Independence, "as far as possible, States would be created on the basis of common cultural and linguistic identity" — language AND regional culture together, not language alone. Even States that share the same principal language have, at different times, still sought separate political existence: the chapter's own account describes Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand being carved out of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar respectively in 2000 "both to meet the demands for a separate State as well as to meet the need for greater administrative efficiency," and Telangana being separated from Andhra Pradesh in 2014 despite a largely shared Telugu-speaking heritage. This shows that a common language does not by itself make a natural single political unit — Rajasthan, MP, UP and Bihar each have their own distinct sub-regional histories, cultures and identities within the wider Hindi-speaking belt. …