Here's something that's been a bit of a puzzle to me, looked it up and the stats seem to match.
It is generally accepted (in the last 10-15 years or so) that: i) India produces flat tracks. ii) Indian bowlers are not superstars. I.e. all the factors necessary for piling on great scores are present.
Then, how is it that so many of the usual (non-Indian) batting suspects (being discussed in this thread) have poor records here? [ Of course not every one of them, Younis has almost matched Sehwag blow for blow. Jayawardene also scores about 8 more per innings than his career average in India, which is very good).
Other batsmen from the list above that have done fine in India (i.e. Hayden, Kallis,Hussey) have pretty much the same average in India as their overall average. But look at the rest of the bunch:
in India career avg
Ponting 21 55
MoYo 34 54
Sanga 36 55
Samaraweera 24 51
Lara* 33 53
(*Though I dont recall Lara making a dominating impact on any test in India, I was surprised to find he had played only one series in India. His average vs India is 35, over 17 tests - so felt OK to list him with a caveat).
I.e. from the 50+ average group of the oughties: one has done really well, one has done quite well, three have been average and five have seriously underachieved.
Certainly other less storied batsmen have made a mark in India (Misbah, Dilshan not checked stats but from recalling impact in recent tests), and so it can hardly be the case that India is a graveyard for visiting batsmen. But why have so many greats/ftbs floundered when the general arguments suggest otherwise?
(I cant think of a simple answer unlike the case of Warne, Murali in India. I know what I'd wish the answer to be, but dont have a sufficient grasp of the game to come up with a convincing argument).