Social movements tend to be considered as unitary objects, so that if they have a single, definable goal, their motivation too is often thought to be simple, even singular, as in “the ideology” of a movement. In the case of Ram Janmabhumi, the means for imputing singularity of motive were readily available. Given the religious character of the actors, the arguments, and the symbols, the motive seemed self-evidently “religious,” implying, then, a religious ideology. The Ram Janmabhumi movement itself was often described as an instance of “communalism,” inspired by “communal” ideology. Against such a monadic view, it is important to stress that movements are systems of action, coordinating a multiplicity of beliefs and intentions. While movements may have an ideology, these are usually produced for specific purposes, as strategic representations resonating with particular publics. What is necessary then is to map different accounts, views, and reflections of the movement and comprehend the manner of their mutual articulation. There has been a failure to recognize the variety of appeals made and intentions subsumed, and the often wide gaps between these. As Bourdieu has pointed out, an elementary relativism suggests that no single viewpoint could offer a comprehensive account of any object; the idea of a sovereign perspective, affected by those at higher levels of society, is hence open to this criticism.