Musicians such as TM Krishna are fighting the prevalent and restrictive elitism. On the other hand, many young Carnatic musicians are making it accessible through fusion albums and bringing crossover audiences. Hindustani has always been more eclectic - confusing that with simplicity might be erroneous though. Also, it’s a fallacy that one needs to ‘understand’ classical music to be able to enjoy it. An untrained but open mind attuned to nature/self can savour both forms.Imo Carnatic music is meant for mature listeners and you need some kind of exposure or training to understand Carnatic music. Hindustani music on the other hand can be good to listen even by casual listeners. I have noticed that listeners and aspirants once in to Carnatic music fully do not enjoy any other form of music as they strongly believe that Carnatic music is above all form of music and they find other music to be inferior and don't enjoy listening to them. Its like once you have tasted sugar all other sweet will be less sweeter than sugar. Nothing right or wrong.
I am not sure if you read the above Wikipedia link. Carnatic music is believed to exist from vedic period which itself is 20,000 years old. Hindustani music came into existence during Persian and Islamic invasion around 1000 years ago. If you believe that link then Carnatic music becomes base for all classical music forms in existence as of today.Carnatic music as it is practiced today is still much closer to it's roots, roots that are shared with what is known as Hindustani Classical today. Latter has evolved via absorbing and being influenced by a lot of additions during the Mughal darbar days. So from an observer's perspective, it will appear that Hindustani Classical is more suited to light listening as compared to Carnatic. If one listens to Dhrupad then one may get a feel of what Hindustani classical was in the pre-Mughal era.