Oh there are mega differences.
They, like us, strongly believe in blood.
Except for a brief period when the eastern and southern dynasties (like the Cholas) spread to and Hinduized parts of South East Asian bloodlines, Hinduism has never aggressively converted.
What they have been pretty aggressive about is the land they consider Hindu and about Hindus converting. Within the boundaries of their own land.
Once again, like us, their faith is very strongly linked to not just blood, but soil.
The biggest strength of Hinduism is to keep the core tenets of their faith untouched, while like water finding the path of least resistance, absorbing, dissolving, assimilating, morphing, re-routing, adopting, and eventually simply engulfing every new (or old - as they did with Jainism) idea or theology under the "Dharmic" umbrella.
Which is why there is such savage and primal loathing among their Taliban (the Sanghis) for the idea of Hinduism itself not being native to this land.
And their upper castes actually being descendants of who they call the Mlecchas.
i.e. Us.
In essence, Sonia Gandhi, the Brits, and the Mughals, were not the first foreigners to have a stranglehold over India.
None were a patch on Vedic Hindus.
@Joe Shearer
Cheers, Doc