There is nothing wrong in demanding the recognition for " Sushruta " . For he was an early & great physician from India .

Question is was he completely Omitted from Indian textbooks or it's just about the title of " father of surgery " . That bothers people like Anshul .

As for the Status of Al Zahrawi . It is the Amount of work & it's usage even in modern times that makes people to mention as " father of surgery " .
Whole Western Academia recognises his worth !

There is a huge gap between the Amount of work he produced to that of Sushruta's.

Al - Tasrif , Translated into Latin in the 12th century by the scholar Gerard of Cremona, it stood for nearly 500 years as the leading textbook on surgery in Europe, preferred for its concise lucidity even to the works of the classic Greek medical authority Galen.

Sushruta was around 500- 600 BCE .

For if the category to be ( father of surgery ) is only about who did work in medicine & surgery earlier , then a Case can be made for Ancient Egyptians who also did surgery .

Why not mention them as father's Of S , instead of Sushruta ?

As for Sushruta , even if you term him as father of surgery in your textbooks .
His works were Great but minimal in No. & Only for his time .

Today no medical College professor will teach you to do surgery using leafs , plants & woods sticks & it's Power as equipment & Drugs !