If I may put in my two cents, I think I'd view Kappoor as a social and cultural phenomenon, and his movies as popular folk art, perhaps something like African urban pop music today. They are better seen within the context of the culture and not to be judged too harshly on a scale of international "art films." We may err sometimes in thinking that we can judge (even) Kiarostami or Hou or whomever without really deeply understanding the culture and language. Even on French or Italian or German or Spanish films we as Americans may actually have tin ears, culturally, in judging them as a part of their cultures.
Kapoor may not ultimately seem a great international artist, but will be seen as having significance within his own culture. Conversely some movies like Zhang's Hero or House of Flying Daggers, may be made to appeal so much to an international audience that they fail to win unviersal acclaim at home. There are lots of movies that are highly successful within their cultural contexts. For instance, contemporary Egyptian social comedies can be very well done. But they would never make it internationally, though you could always argue that that's Miramax's fault; I'd say it's because you had to be there. The assumption if anybody has it that all films must be judged and appreciated by an international audience to be deemed of lasting merit may be in a curious way ethno-centric.
