That isn't true.
There have been decisive battles, many of them, provided that we understand that these were decisive for the sub-continent. Similarly, there have been battles in China, Korea, south-east Asia and Japan, which too were decisive within those strategic areas. However, it is not right to talk about battles which cannot be described in reasonable detail, which are known only in terms of the antagonists, and sometimes, not even that in much clarity. That is why it isn't useful to talk about these battles.
A second reason is that events in these areas did not directly affect the events of the area connected to the western world, which is what serves as the touchstone of acceptability for most historical considerations. What is commonly accepted - and this is wrong - is events, and battles which affected Europe, the north African shoreland opposite the Mediterranean, the Russian hinterland, all the way up until the Aral Sea, the middle East, including Anatolia, Armenia and the Caucasus, Arabia, Persia and Afghanistan.
There is no point in wishing that things were different. This is how things are in reality.
So decisive battles in the sub-continent, great battles on the sub-continent, and strategic campaigns on the sub-continent are none of them likely to be reported along with others of their kind. Not because they have not occurred, but because of these reasons above.
I hope that this will illustrate the practical difficulties of thinking with your heart rather than with your brains. Try a change; the first couple of times, it may be painful, but after getting used to it, a wonderful world of the intellect will emerge. You will not regret it.
