The people were to rule, not a foreign or indigenous monarch. This is reflected in the Constitution which begins by taking its authority from, "We the people of India". And Article 370 of that Constitution raises the fundamental issue of whether territory should get priority over people.
Continuing differences over Article 370 (originally numbered 306-A) of the Indian Constitution represent much more than disagreement over the autonomy to be enjoyed by the State of Jammu and Kashmir. From the day the Article was drafted in October 1949, it became the point of collision of sharply opposing viewpoints on whether the new India, would be kept together by a centralised authority, as in the past, or by the consent of its peoples.
During the struggle for independence, national leaders were pledged to secure democratic governance and a federal structure responsive to the ethnic and cultural diversity of the country. The people were to rule, not a foreign or indigenous monarch. This is reflected in the Constitution which begins by taking its authority from, "We the people of India". The most eloquent expression of this view came from prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru in a speech in the Lok Sabha on 7 August 1952, justifying the special status given to Jammu and Kashmir but going further in defining the relationship between Central authority and outlying areas in a democratic polity. His words merit recall, though he himself was not always able to resist opposing pressures. He said:
"So while the accession [of Jammu and Kashmir] was complete in law and in fact, the other fact that has nothing to do with the law remains, namely our pledge to the people of Kashmir—if you like to the people of the world—that this matter could be affirmed or cancelled by the people of Kashmir according to their wishes. We do not wish to win people against their will with the help of armed force; and if the people of Kashmir wish to part company with us, they may go their way and we shall go ours. We want no forced marriages, no forced unions."