Oh, I'm not suggesting it is for a second, but I think you have to look at things reasonably.
There's a lot of factors contributing to Warne's dismal record against India, and only some of them are to do with India playing him extremely well.
The facts are these, in my opinion:
Warne's peaks as a bowler are 93-98 and since his return in 2004. Warne suffered serious injuries in 98 and 2001 that set back his career significantly, and the period between 99 and 2002 was easily the poorest of his career. His averages rose, his variations disappeared, his fitness declined and he was forced to rethink his bowling. Not just India, but also relatively weak teams like the West Indies and England had a decent time against him during his slumps around this time.
Warne did not play India between the 93 Ashes tour and his tour in 98, where he struggled and it was widely acknowledged he was injured. In 99 and 2001, he was in the poorest part of his career, in 91 it was his debut series, and in 2004 he was bowling well but had limited time in cricket since his return from a drug ban, and regardless his performance was much improved.
I don't think you can suggest that Warne at his best would dominate India, because I doubt he would. But, I think he'd be more likely to take 10 @ 30 in 3 tests than 5 @ 50, like in 2004 as compared to earlier tours. And, when people claim as some do that Murali is clearly better than Warne because he's had a better time of it against India, it's worth taking these factors into account.
It's like say Lillee in Pakistan or Murali in Australia for me. It's possible Lillee would have struggled in Pakistan if he'd played a lot there, and same with Murali in Australia, but I doubt their records would look as poor as they do now if more things had gone their way.
im pretty sure that the mike gatting ball was anything but an inswinger
