A problem I see in all this is that "real Hindus" are secure enough in their faith and culture to not be swayed by proselytization. How secure in their faith are those who are easily swayed by proselytization, whether Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Sikh, Christian or Buddhist? Are they "real Hindus" because they are Indian, any more than those of us who adopt Hinduism? Uh... I gotta say that's a resounding and reverberating "No, they are not!". They never were and they never will be. Stop conflating Indian and Hindu. I think Indonesians might take umbrage with that also as much as I do. Whatever the true census is, if Indian Christians are even 10% of he entire population, that says that almost 3/4 of the population at least identify as Hindu. Ten percent of 1.2 billion is 120,000,000.
It seems some people are suggesting that Indians are sheeple. As a non-Indian with an affinity for India and its people, despite what some quarters think of me, I find it highly offensive and nauseating that Indians are so lowly thought of and sold short. Indian culture and civilization, and Hinduism is at least 5,000 years old; I believe it's older. For 5,000 years India and Hinduism have survived onslaughts from Muslims, Greeks (pagan Greeks I might add), and Christians. And still Hinduism survives. The only reason Chingghis Khan didn't make it to India was because of the Himālayas. He would be more of a threat to Indian civilization and Hinduism than all the others put together. And still India and Hinduism would survive. Is Hinduism Sanātana Dharma or not? If it is, then it will survive forever, and those people easily converted away from it were never Hindu to begin with. Why do western white converts have more faith in Indians than some so-called Indian Hindus?