Yep, eurocentric historians want to trace everything back to the Greeks, even the ideas of atoms. However, the Greeks never actually took atoms seriously and it was flatly rejected by Aristotle who preferred fantasy ideas like matter consisting of forms. In addition Democritus’s philosophy of atoms was based on naive speculation and is actually wrong according to moderns science, such as the notion that atoms come in different shapes. In contrast, Indian theories of atoms were highly developed and had a really long history of development, long before Democritus theorized them. They were partly based on empirical observation observed in chemical reactions.
Not only were Indian theories of well ahead of the Greeks, they were also well ahead of Dalton who theorized atoms as being hard solid things that could not be split open. In contrast, Indian atomic theory conceptualized atoms as having no magnitude at all, but infinifesimal points in space, which only gained massive property after a process of aggregation. Modern atomic theory is almost identical to Indian atomic theory. The similarities are stagging in how the Indian atomic theory posits atoms combine first in pairs, then pairs combine to form triplet atoms, whose various combinations then go onto form all matter. It states that atoms only combine if the consistuent particles are compatible(similar to electron valencies) and describes the states of matter(solid, liquid, gas) as atoms with different levels of kinetic energy. Vaiseshika explain that the liquid state of matter arises when the atomic bonds are broken in the solid state through the application of heat energy, causing the atoms to reorganize into a liquid state.
In fact the accuracy with how the atomic process is described suggests this is not philosophy at all, but empirical knowledge.
An attempt was made at patenting a zinc extraction process which was Indian, but the the patent was denied because it was blatantly known at the time it was Indian.