What you have written has two different parts:

1. Things that are factually known today
2. Things that are logical, emotional, or traditional conclusions

They should not be mixed as if both are “proved history”.

---

1. What is factually known (from present records)

From current records and news:

• In village Mana (Tal. Murtizapur, Dist. Akola) three ancient Jain idols (Neminath, Sambhavnath, Mahavir) were found.
• They were found during digging in the area called Matangpura, in the plot/house compound of a person from the Matang community (Ramesh Ingole). ( pudhari.news)
• Government and court records clearly accept:

- 3 Jain idols were discovered there. - They were buried under the ground. - The land belongs to a Matang family / Matang locality.

This much is solid, present-time evidence. It is not false.

What is not written anywhere in official or old Jain granthas is:

• Who exactly buried the idols.
• In which century they were buried.
• With what exact intention.
• Whether the same continuous family/varna protected them generation after generation knowingly.

On these points, there is no written proof so far.

---

2. Your logical narrative about Matang vansh

You have constructed a very meaningful and logical story:

• “It is Matangpura, so Matang community lived there for centuries.”
• “They owned and lived on that land, so others were not likely living there.”
• “They buried the idols to protect a Jain temple from danger.”
• “They then slowly took another social identity to save the idols and their dharma.”

From a Jain perspective of anekāntavād (many-sided truth):

• Your story is a possible vyākhyā (interpretation).
• It honours the Matang community as Rakshak (protectors) of Jain mūrtis.
• Spiritually, this feeling of “we protected Jain dharma even without recognition” is not wrong; it can be a very powerful bhāva (inner feeling of devotion).

But from a strict historical / archaeological point of view:

• We must clearly say:

This is a logical reconstruction, not a fully proven historical fact.

• There is no old inscription, no old Jain text, no dated document that directly says:

> “Matang vansh buried and protected these exact three idols for centuries.”

So:

• Your reverence and faith are true for you.
• But as “history” it remains a strong hypothesis, not a completed proof.

---

3. Is it “false”?

If you ask:

> “Is it false that Matang vansh protected these 3 idols for centuries?”

In Jain dharma-bhāva terms:

• It is not false to feel:

- “Our community has a deep karmic and spiritual connection with these Jain idols.” - “We might have been their protectors in earlier times.” - “Our ancestors may have followed Jain dharma and later lost open identity due to social pressures.”

Such possibilities fit very well with:

• The long Jain presence in Maharashtra and Deccan.
• The Jain principle that many communities, not only one varna, have followed Jain dharma over time.

But in strict language:

• It is not yet historically proved.
• It is also not historically disproved.
• It is in the middle: “sambhāvyam” – possible, reasonable, but unverified.

So the honest answer is:

> Your statement is not proved history, > but it is also not simply false. > It is a faith-based and logical community tradition that still needs more evidence if you want full academic acceptance.

---

4. How Jain dharma would guide us here

From pure Jain viewpoint:

1. Anekāntavād – accept that:

- Archaeologists, historians will only accept what is documented. - Devotees and communities will accept what is also felt in the heart and handed down as paramparā.

1. Ahimsā & Samata-bhāva – use this story:

- Not to claim superiority over any other community. - But to reconnect Matang vansh with ahiṁsā, anuvrat, and Jain conduct today.

1. Jain scriptural purity – when we speak in the name of Jain āgamas or tīrtha history, we must:

- Clearly separate “granthon mein likhā hai” (scripturally written) - From “hamārā tark aur paramparā hai” (our logic and tradition).

You are rightly trying to reconnect Matang vansh with Jain roots. That intention is very good and fully in line with Jain dharma, as long as:

• We speak truthfully about the level of evidence.
• We do not mix belief with proven history without labeling it.

---

5. A balanced way to present it to others

If you explain to your own people or to society, a clear and honest sentence could be:

> “In Mana village of Akola, three ancient Jain idols of Neminath, Sambhavnath, and Mahavir were found buried in Matangpura, inside Matang community land. This is officially recorded today. > According to our community’s understanding and logic, our ancestors may have been Jain followers who hid and protected these idols during times of danger. We consider ourselves the traditional protectors of these mūrtis, even though written historical proof of this specific act has not yet been found.”

This way:

• Dharma-satya (spiritual truth) and
• Itihāsik-satya (historical truth)

are both respected.

---

So in short:

• Your feeling that Matang vansh has a deep role in protecting these idols is not false.
• But as formal “history”, it remains a strong and beautiful possibility, not a fully proven fact (yet).