They are not banned for hte same reason, becaue we dont even know the reason for why Indian Tom Cruise got all the Arab knickers in a twist. But let us dissect your preposturous analogy.
One one side: BBC makes a "fact based" documentary which is banned in India because it makes the head despot look bad. It was a documentary based on his role in Gujarat massacre, which also ended in him getting a ban from the US and perhaps other countries. Would it have caused riots in the country? Who knows? Are Indians going to go riot over a documentary that has facts? If so, it only portrays the country in poor light.
On the other: a fictional movie with a theme most likely residing in fictional events, characters, etc. not based on actual events, with themes dependent on the director, made to cater to a majority Hindu audience with potentially anti muslim views.
So can you really equate them? Does it cause some sort of a moral dilemma in the banning of either one or both?
This is a civics question even an elementary level student can answer.