Gandhi-ism Vs Gandhigiri

One of the debates that the latest Munnabhai flick (Lage Raho Munnabhai) has started off is this debate of Gandhi-ism Vs Gandhigiri. Basically, what is means is that the people who favour Gandhi-ism believe that Munnabhai has sort of cheapened and commercialised Gandhi's teachings in the form of Gandhigiri. And those in favour of Gandhigiri, defend themselves saying that Gandhigiri is not about commercialism but making Gandhi accessible to the masses by simplifying his ideals.

Personally, I have no opinions on either Gandhi-ism or Gandhigiri. I believe that Gandhi is one of the most relevant leaders of our times - simply from the perspective that he believed in bringing out the best in most people. War, anger, terrorism on the other hand bring out the worst in most people and the best in a few. And to add to that he was in favour of widespread wealth creation - hence his strong views on agriculture, small industries etc. That is also the better form of socialism.

Actually, I think he was not against the hierarchy of wealth - i.e there is a chain, where a few people are fabulously rich, a larger number is well-off, the next rung of larger numbers is a comfortable middle class and then there is the working class which, while not comfortable or well off, is not dying of poverty either. I am basing this on the fact that he was on excellent terms with most industrialists, who were in fact in the legion of the fabulously wealthy.

Gandhi-ism vs Gandhigiri follows the same chain - people who can afford to and are able to think/reflect follow Gandhi-ism, which is in the form of greater understanding, while Gandhigiri, while sticking to the basic spirit of Gandhi-ism, applies it as a simple formula in daily life. To me, both are equally important. And if there are a few more forms of it like Gandhi-dadha's vs Gandhi-thathas, it will still be welcome.