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 !
Indicating a Conspiracy behind mention of Al Zahrawi in kerala textbook is just Anshul's wild Assumption based on his inferiority complex

As Al-Zahrawi is already Considered by many in Academia as F of surgery
It's not a unjust , Un-Academic , forced inclusion that's for sure

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.