My biggest gripe with the documentary is that it simplifies things too much, and in some cases IMHO even misrepresented things.
The way it presents things is, crudely put, "Hindus and Muslims were living happily together in India, and then Modi came along, stoked tensions, and things all went south". While Modi definitely played a part and has much to answer for, things are significantly more complex than that. "Muslims set pilgrims on fire during the Godhra train burning" accusation/assumption – which probably isn't true – didn't come out of thin air, as such things did happen before.[1]
One example of what I considered serious misrepresentation is (quote from the documentary) "In June last year, a BJP spokeswoman made comments about the Prophet Muhammad on TV that angered Muslims in India and around the world". Curiously, it doesn't say what the "comments" were, so I looked it up and they were really mild:
"I want to ask those with affection for the Prophet that at the age of 53, he married a 6-year-old girl Aisha and then at the age of 56, he consummated that relationship with 9-year-old Aisha ... does such relationship not come under the category of rape?" [2]
Which is a long-standing and common criticism, and the ages are generally accepted by Muslim scholars as well. And the "around the world" means the usual religio-fascist countries that are angered whenever someone criticised their religion; you know, the type of people who think that someone getting beheaded for showing a cartoon or stabbed in the eye for writing a book is just a fantastic thing.
Yet, the way it's presented in the documentary leaves the impression that she said something vile and horribly Islamophobic. She did no such thing. Yet she was suspended from the BJP, seemingly mostly to placate violent threats from some Muslims. Several people died in the protests over those comments. The person who made the remarks had to have security due to death threats.
There's a bunch of things like this where I felt it presented a rather myopic view of things. Not false exactly, but not the full story, either.
One could counter by saying that the film was only intended to examine Modi's role, and isn't supposed to be a full examination of the full conflict. But I think one needs to understand at least the basics of the full conflict and context to examine Modi's role in it.
Of course, none of this justifies India's response to the film. But I did not like the documentary, and did not consider it all that balanced. Yes, BJP officials were given ample time, but by focusing on only a specific set of events instead of a more complete picture it was quite balanced.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Chamba_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Wandhama_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Amarnath_pilgrimage_massa... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Kishtwar_massacre and more
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Muhammad_remarks_controve...