Purely heresay but I have heard that India is much more problematic for climbers. Harder to organise logistics and very inconsistent. From what I can gather, more difficult than Pakistan. Nepal is all too easy in comparison.

The Indian Himalayas would be more popular if more people knew about them.
A Summitpost member called Kaushal Desai has given us lots of information about this area on his profile and website. He has climbed over 110 peaks over 6000 meters
http://www.summitpost.org/user_page.php?user_id=42069
He is a guide and his website is
http://www.above14000ft.com

i believe most people choose Nepal for climbing Himalayas because most of the Himalayas are in Nepal or Nepa-China border. Mount Everest can be climbed from Nepal or China. Whereas several other popular Himalayas lie in Nepal, so they have to be climbed from Nepal. These include the popular (also known as the deadliest mountain) Annapurna, Kangchenjunga, Lhotse, Makalu, Cho Oyu, Dhaulagiri, Manaslu, and Ama Dablam among others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalaya

http://www.explorehimalaya.com/

Never done big peaks but after going thru the bureaucratic hassle of getting an Indian visa while in Nepal, I can only wonder about the hassles of organizing a trip there.

I also think the peaks are overlooked somewhat because they tend to be smaller and often more technical, think Shivling, Changabang, the Bhagiraithis. I had always wanted to climb there after cutting my teeth for many years in the Valley but the opportunity never arose. In another life...

http://www.indmount.org/05marreducedcharge.html

India was always more hassle than Nepal or Pakistan. They changed the rules recently to make it easier for small teams of climbers. The half/half rule only applies to sensitive restricted areas like the Siachen Glacier etc.

D