Some specifics aside, on the broader issue of "educated" (in quotations to denote "education" = formal, conventional understanding thereof) vs. the "uneducated"...

Not only in Nepal, but all over the world, even in matters that directly affect the "uneducated" vast majority, the so-called intellectuals often deprive the latter in the very process of uplifting them, citing the very lack of "education" amongst them. Be it while drafting the new constitution in Nepal, or any other development projects around the world, the very idea of the "educated", on the premise of "we-know-it-all", has patronized the mass. This is outright condescending and wrong. what this does, in essence, is further alienates and deprives the poor and the "uneducated" mass, rendering them forever marginalized, rather than the often stated purpose of uplifting them.

It should be of utmost priotiy that we, the "educated" not approach the issue of uplifting the underprivileged in terms of doing things (e.g., drafting a new constitution) FOR them, but WITH them. This would ensure the maximum possible positive result in the end.

This is not to undermine the value of "education", of course -- "education" also plays a critical role in our livelihoods. However, to enhance the very essence of "education", and to make it more effective, the genuine inclusion of the "uneducated" in the process of development, without any condescendence and/or dismissal(s) is a must.

True, the "uneducated" members of the CA may just be folled/played around as mere rubber stamps or, even worse, may just be tools of party leadership to showcase the facade of inclusiveness. Nevertheless, when all is said and done, I am darn sure that thier mere presence in the corridors and halls of the assembly would have made the voices of their kind heard, their aspirations and their needs recognized, albeit in some little ways or another. This may not be enough, but it sure would serve as a good beginning.

Finally, I agree with Chana-ji about what seems like a gender bias within Prachanda himself regarding his son and daughter. Atleast, that seems like a hypocrisy on the surface of it. BUt I would not jump into solid conclusions about it until I hear his side of the story. Allow me to disagree with you, with all due rspect, Chana-ji, however, on your conviction that if the "uneducated" were to play the roles of safeguarding their interests (paharedaars) -- which they must -- that the streets would have sufficed. This notion of depriving the mass from the direct involvement within the confines of the assembly and to limit them to the streets is, again, very patronizing the humiliating to those who may not be able to read or write, but who would very well best know what exactly is their needs simply by the virtue of who they are. This becomes even more important in Nepal because the "uneducated" are in the vast majority there. The perspectives that the "uneducated" brings along with them can never be less in touch with themselves than the perspective of them as understood/perceived by the "educated".

Let's not demean, belittle and deprive the "uneducated". Afterall, genuine and sincere inclusion of them in every aspect of our nation building, from constitution drafting to development, only can deliver the most complete, fruitful, and meaningful result at the end.