http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/38b451...
The OP article had me going, because it was partially correct about the film being a hagiography. But it went quickly into looney-land about half way through. If you look up the author and his other writings, you'll realize why.
No wonder.
I think the idea and principles that Gandhi stood for are nevertheless important just as the ideas and principles the Founding Fathers of the US had in mind when framing the constitution are considered important. The details of Gandhi's life are slightly less important. Also, people fail to realize the context behind a lot of Gandhi's misgivings. It was a different era (which is no excuse) but even Abraham Lincoln wasn't of the opinion that blacks are equals and the Founding Fathers owned slaves themselves.
The lesson is to take their stories with a pinch of salt, but nevertheless feel motivated and inspired by the goals and ideals these famous people represented, not the minutiae of their actual lives.
Great causes have been championed by heroes, moreso than on the merits of the causes themselves. Heroes are people we can identify with, and reflect a kind of perfection that most people look up to.
I think this is starting to change, thanks in part to the communication age, which is not only stripping the white-wash from our heroes but also making them gradually less necessary.