If we go undivided India, even Afgani Muslims can be Homogeneous to India. So is Pakistani, Bangladeshi Muslims. Our differences was religion. So 1947 partition happened. The ppl of Sultans, Nizam, Nawab, Hyder, Tippu has nothing to do with AP TG KA TN. They're r outsiders.
Sharjeel Imam is accurate in calling Muslims as the most homogeneous group in Indian subcon.
This is not a new observation either. European travellers and observers in India wrote extensively about it.
Islam in India spread in a remarkably spiritually centralised manner. This helps explain why Urdu (emerging from Northern Hindavi) first attained status of a language of high culture and was patronised early in the Deccan, where the local population was completely alien to it.
And this sense of civilisational commonality is not merely historical. Even today, a Gangetic Hindu and a Kannadiga Hindu may share little in terms of cultural experience, whereas a Muslim from UP/Delhi visiting Karnataka/Hyderabad, or vice versa, feel at home with the other.
Kerala and Tamil Nadu are exceptions, because Islam developed there through somewhat different historical trajectories. But their exceptionalism does not negate the broader pattern.
Even in Tamil Nadu, we see a significant chunk of Muslims who are a product of that centralised Hanafi/Urdu/Farswani mileu.
Critics bringing up fringe Shafi'i-Arabi Malayali and Tamil (some sections) Islam as a counterargument is futile.