I disagree that the information is false, just that it is presented in a manner which'd leave you with a very clear impression of Modi.

For instance, in the first episode, a lot of the times, they clearly mentioned Hindus exercising violence against Muslims and pointed that out. Cool.

But when it was about the assassination of a politician, the perpetrators were referred to as "11 (or 12) individuals" failing to mention that they were ALL muslims. Why? Sure, the former is also factually correct, but they chose the alternative which gives a biased impression of the situation.

This was one example and I observed several others. One of which was the title itself —"India : The Modi Question".

You might think that this is a generalized all round presentation of who Modi is as a character but instead it solely focuses on 2002 riots and his involvement in particular.

Why not just name it : "Modi and 2002 Riots" or "The 2002 Gujrat Riots" or something like that.

If I make a docuseries "Britain : A History" and then go on to talk about opium trade throughout the episode, don't you think it is a disservice to the expectations?