Punjab was shown because that is where most of the killing occurred.
The Documentary mentions over and over how Sikhs began arming themselves and readying to attack Muslims, and they make it clear the Sikhs were determined to prevent the loss of Punjab to Pakistan at all cost. The Sikhs began arming and becoming violent on the basis of rumors. This isnt made up, that is fact. Usually, people only begin arming if they hear a rumor.
Sikhs are shown in a village chanting Sikh slogans and bucking each other up for battle.
Before they mentioned that Muslims attacked, they interviewed two people that said Muslims were treated horribly by Hindus, and so there was animosity due to mistreatment.
So because they didnt show a Muslim crying, you assume they are trying to paint Muslims in a negative light? Dont you think the mention of atrocities committed by Non Muslims should suffice in instilling in you the fact that both sides suffered?
So you were expecting the Sikh person to have welcomed the departure of the Muslims? At the end, Mr Khan is shown to be sad at what Lahore had become with the departure of Hindus and Sikhs. So if Sikhs were sad to see their Muslim friends go, so were Muslims to see NonMuslims people go.
Nehru was mentioned as being a socialist who could not accept a Untied India in which central authority did not rest with the Govt, hence was blamed in part for the failure of negotiations. Gandhi is understood to be well meaning but out of touch and not in anyway capable of reaching Muslims. If anything, this documentary was dismissive of both men. This is not the Movie “Gandhi” this is actual history.
The sikh person who killed Muslims with his sword was not being glorified. They are showing him in stark reality. They are leaving it to you to make the judgment. Any normal person who would hear him, would think this man is purely evil. If a Sikh had watched that interview, he would have accused the documentary of vilifying Sikhs based on that old man alone.
The comment about Jinnah was a direct quote from Mountbatten. This is history, are they supposed to sugar coat it for your consumption?
Again, it was mentioned that despite Gandhis walks through villages, he did not appeal to Muslims and hence failed on that account.
They may not have mentioned the killings on the Train but they mentioned multiple attacks on Muslims. For you, if they mention atrocities against Muslims, they are glorifying NonMuslim crimes. But if they dont mention atrocities against Muslims, they are guilty of omission. Cant win with you.
Mr Khan is shown to be one of those people who mourned the loss of culture and heritage. When the Sikh mourns his friends, they are being empathetic towards NonMuslims, according to you. But when a Muslim mourns the loss of his city, he is seen as a propaganda tool.
Most of your arguments are just you sitting there knit picking and trying to find something wrong. I would be surprised given the massive chip on your shoulder, if you hadn’t already assumed a bias even before pressing the play button.