Yes, Noor Jehan and Shamshad Begum’s voices were associated with tawaifs and hence “Muslimness”.

I’ve written about this:

In her article “Meri Awaaz Suno: Women, Vocality and Nation in Hindi Cinema”, Pavitra Sundar argues that Mangeshkar’s “desexualized vocal style helped contain the dangerous visual and aural presence of female bodies in public”. Mangeshkar “consciously moved away from the vocal heaviness and nasality of her predecessors, singers like Noorjehan and Shamshad Begum. Her voice was ‘cleansed’ of all those qualities that would in time be read as markers of decadence, immodesty and by extension, in the warped logic of Indian nationalism, Muslimness” (Sundar 2008: 149). While the vocal styles of Noorjehan and Shamshad Begum were associated with the courtesan milieu, Mangeshkar’s voice came to be associated with middle-class (Hindu) femininity.

https://kabiraltaf.substack.com/p/the-construction-of-femininity-in

Also the bass voice of these singers was associated with nauch houses, and hence was considered vulgar. So a more pious sounding, albeit bit shrill voice got wider acceptance in India.
Asha bhonsle’s voice was sort of counter to latha’s.

interesting

https://images.dawn.com/news/1195886/celebrating-100-years-of-pakistans-queen-of-melody-noor-jehan-with-5-classic-songs

According to Wikipedia, from 1945 to 1947, Noor Jehan was one of the biggest film actresses in the Indian film industry.

I have also come across the argument that it was her departure for Pakistan in 1947 that subsequently created the space for Lata Mangeshkar.

By Malik Meer

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2026/sep/21/salman-toor-artist-interview-clubbing-queerness-new-york-muslim-moment

Pedantic analysis on Babur’s descendants aside, the core question of this video stands.

That the Pakistani military chooses to maintain unsustainable levels of hostility towards the Indian state is undeniable. What’s harder to fathom is why such a policy is so readily embraced by so many apologists and exploited, even when it is abundantly clear to anybody literate that this is a self-goal of non-trivial proportions.

very nice video..

I’m now creating a backlog of posts haha (also I tend to slow post production if I don’t see enough popular posts, >50) emerging

Babur’s descendants are in the Indian Subcontinent not Central Asia (I’ll expand on this)..

I think this video on X deserves a BP post.

I mean, most of your points have massive caveats. Muslims in South Asia have traditionally been urban since the historical dynamic stated that the elite muslims ruled in the city and the elite Hindus ruled in the countryside. However, a point to keep in mind is that urbanites abandoned the land to go to Pakistan and caused the majority of the cities to decline in population. Indian muslims were mostly non-elite (especially in the North), coming from less Urban and more Rural settings.

There is a clear reason why Indian muslims stayed behind, since they often had stronger connections to the local communities in the rural regions. Muslims are more common in Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, the Deccan, and Kerala. Except for the Deccan, the remaining regions were heavily agrarian in olden days, and some even remain agrarian today.

I mean, this can even explain the massive fertility difference between Hindu and Muslim groups in the early period, as well as the massive decline in fertility in more recent times for muslims. The historical fertility rate often compared both rural and urban Hindus as a single category against a primarily rural and somewhat urban Muslim population.

The increased urbanization of Muslims, in contrast to the lower increase among Hindus, caused Muslims to enter cities and be affected by economic pressures that reduced fertility rates, unlike the Hindu population that urbanized at a slower pace. This generally tracks with minority groups in most countries, including African Americans in the US, since these groups often migrate to urban centres as they tend to be safer and easier to manage during periods of racial or Religious rioting and political polarization. Over time, the Urbanization rate will increase.

What I am saying wouldn’t even be a stretch since the Pew Research “Sidebar article: demographic profiles” literally says that only 41% of muslim households are in urban city centres, in contrast to 32% of Hindu households. Mind you, that number was in 2021, after urbanization was rising among muslims, which would probably get higher with time as polarization increased after 2021. Even with such rates, only 41% was urban, while the remaining 59% was rural in character.

In terms of clothing, I mean the saree is generally going out of daily use among women as it is being replaced by other clothing; even then, the Saree’s present form comes from the colonial era. My own Christian grandmother historically wore traditional clothing associated with our community well into her 30s and only started adopting sarees much later. She was born in 1947. All of which ignores the fact that our community also used to veil women in the pre-colonial period until it gradually faded out over time.

Also, I think you don’t understand how the purdah system has worked in India for a long time. My grandmother was born into a relatively conservative family that put deep restrictions on women’s freedom for a long time. Women were never allowed to leave the house on their own, couldn’t sit on the veranda for the public to see, and were often expected to remain in the kitchen while guests came to visit. My own grandmother sits in this very way behind a reed mat whenever she sits on the veranda. People even straight up believed that a woman was a slut if she rode a bicycle, since it was unwomanly, in addition to having a male escort if they wanted to leave the house. These things clearly would apply to Muslims (and even Hindus back then) just as much.

Over time, people became less stringent as women were able to leave their households without male restrictions and had more freedom. This applied to every community, including muslims. The only difference between muslims and the other groups was that they were slower to change. From how I see it, muslim conservatives understood that they could restrict women like in the old days, but they didn’t want to liberalize since it reduced their power (like what happened with the other communities’ conservatives).

So, they created things like the Hijab or burka, etc to act as a compromise; you can go outside without a male escort, but you have to cover yourself. In this way, the women get a degree of freedom, thereby reducing the desire to rebel, while conservatives get to retain their authority over women. Fundamentally, women have become freer, but not to the same extent as other communities. Mind you, I should point out here that the older urban muslim wouldn’t have the same restrictions since they would have come from more liberal backgrounds to begin with. The difference right now would be that the conservative women that was previously restricted in their homes under purdah are now leaving their houses since they only need to wear this clothing if they want to step out. So, it seems like the number of people wearing it increased, when in reality the women previously bound in homes have started to step out.

In more recent times, things like the Hijab have, ironically enough, been used to represent female agency and Muslim identity to a strong point. The increased political polarization has made many muslims feel marginalized and insecure in their identity; hence, they wish to express that identity publicly and choose to wear these things more often. Also, the hijab has kinda became a form of commercialized clothing in many places, so people wear it a lot more often as well.

Mind you, I don’t really care or particularly like any of this practice since I see this as pandering to conservatives, so they can provide some concessions to women. Most of these women are definitely facing a degree of pressure within their communities, like how things were in the olden days for all women. I say this since my own grandmothers and mother went through the same thing, including the excessive pressure from their family. It even made it more stupid, considering the riots and systemic discrimination people face today, which means wearing a literal glowing beacon of your identity makes you an easy target. I remember reading a study that showed that women who wore religious articles were often more likely to face violence and discrimination, in contrast to those who don’t wear such things, who in turn face discrimination from within their community for wearing such clothing.

There is even a layer of elitism here since purdah was something that landlords and elite people practiced more extensively since it was kinda expensive and was made for unemployed privileged people. A burka or Hijab is objectively a hindrance for women working hard labour (or doing informal labor as part of the working class) in warm and humid climates that can trigger things like heatstroke. This clothing is more suited for indoor jobs or housewives, which is becoming an even more privileged thing in this society. A sizeable section of muslims are financially insecure and would require more active participation from women to make ends meet, that too working in lower-paying jobs like hard labour, housemaid, food delivery driver, etc., where facing communal exploitation is more common and being religiously clad makes you an even more of a target.

Ironically, the excessive decision to outright ban or control this clothing gave it validation and shifted it from a conservative compromise into a symbol of resistance. Frankly, if people just pointed out the flaws and didn’t excessively try to control it, then it would have simply faded with time (like it is now happening in North African countries like Tunisia) as people became more educated, since, in some sense, this was always kinda a fad on one hand and a stepping stone to further female emancipation, as previously restricted women would be able to leave their home.

Lastly, the Deobandis have always been a major thing in India since as far back as the colonial era and have always strengthened their control of the indian muslim community. So, that isn’t exactly something new. The main reason why they even wield such power stemmed from the fact that progressives mostly ran off to Pakistan, while the few that remained behind were marginalized. The Deoband and other conservatives remained as the main leaders since they opposed the partition, which weakened the Indian muslims and made them feel like they were abandoned by the progressives that ran off to Pakistan.

Also, borrowing shit from the Middle East isn’t anything new, because Persia comes from Iran, and most Indian sultans had a Persian fetish. This is a continuation of tradition rather than something new; every community is borrowing influences from the outside as well, including ethno-religious nationalism, homophobia, and so on, in addition to other more positive elements. Even then, who knows how long this bullshit will last until everyone gets the next pointless thing to rave over.

To bring it back to my basic point: Indian muslim as the same assholes as every other community. They go through the same things that everyone goes through in the rest of society and aren’t some unique people.