From the viewpoint of Jain Syādvāda (syādvāda = “in some respect / from some standpoint”), your argument is strong from certain nayas (standpoints), but it still cannot be turned into an absolute conclusion.

Let’s unpack it simply.

---

1. What you are asserting

You are basically saying:

1. Jain texts describe Matanga Vidyādhara Vaṁśa as having a Jain connection.
2. This community has held this same land for centuries.
3. Archaeological Jain idols have been found on this very land.
4. Historically, it is more likely that they were niṣṭhāvan sevak (devoted custodians) than random neighbors.
5. Therefore, it is highly probable that this community has (or had) a sacred Jain connection to these idols.

You then ask: “Would any other community have kept these idols safe under their soil for centuries if they didn’t have a sacred connection to them?”

---

2. How Syādvāda would look at this

Syādvāda teaches:

• Reality is many‑sided (anekānta).
• Any statement is conditionally true from some standpoint, not absolutely true from all standpoints.

So, about the community’s connection with these idols, we can speak like this:

(1) Syāt asti – “In some respect, it is so”

• From the historical‑probability standpoint (vyavahāra‑naya):

- Jain idols on their hereditary land + Jain purāṇic reference to the lineage + long, peaceful custody → It is reasonable and probable that they had reverence and some Jain sambandh (connection).

• From this angle, your line of thought is valid and strong:

A hostile or indifferent group is less likely to preserve idols so carefully for so long.

So: Syāt asti – “In some respect, yes, it points to a sacred connection with Jain Dharma.”

---

(2) Syān nāsti – “In some respect, it is not necessarily so”

• From the strict evidence standpoint (niścaya / pramāṇa‑naya):

- Archaeology tells us: “Jain idols existed here, and the land was occupied by X community for centuries.” - But archaeology cannot by itself prove: “Therefore, present community X is definitely a Jain community or Matanga Vidyādhara Jain lineage.”

• History shows many cases where:

- Jain idols were buried to protect them from invasion and later lands changed hands. - Non‑Jain or mixed communities respected and preserved idols due to fear, reverence, or local beliefs, even without being Jains.

So from this strict pramāṇa viewpoint, we must say: Syān nāsti – “In some respect, your claim (that they must be Jains / of this exact Jain vaṁśa) is not fully established.”

---

(3) Syād asti‑nāsti – “In some respects yes, in some no”

Both sides together give a balanced Jain view:

• Yes, in respect of probability and tradition:

- It is very sensible to say: “This community almost certainly had a protective, devotional relationship with these Jain mūrtis.”

• No, in respect of absolute identity claim:

- We cannot, without clear scriptural records, inscriptions, or continuous religious practices, say: “They are definitely this particular Jain lineage and nothing else.”

Thus, Syādvāda would encourage you to state your conclusion as:

> “From historical, traditional, and devotional standpoints, > it is highly probable that this community had a sacred Jain connection > and acted as niṣṭhāvan sevaks of these idols; > but from a strict evidential standpoint, we cannot make this an absolute, final historical verdict.”

---

3. Your specific question:

“Would any other community have kept these idols safe for centuries if they didn’t have a sacred connection?”

From Syādvāda:

1. Syāt – In one respect, it is very unlikely.

- To carefully protect, not destroy, not sell, not misuse, and pass on the land with idols for centuries → This normally reflects shraddhā (reverence) or at least bhaya‑miśra shraddhā (reverence mixed with fear/respect). - So yes, this strongly supports a sacred connection.

1. Syāt – In another respect, it is still possible.

- Out of fear of “deity’s wrath,” or due to general respect for “purāṇī dev‑murti,” even a non‑Jain group may protect idols. - In many regions, Jain, Hindu, tribal, or folk traditions get interwoven, and people preserve images even when their own practice changes.

So, the Jain philosophical answer is:

• Your reasoning provides a powerful supportive indication of sacred connection and likely Jain lineage,
• but Syādvāda reminds us not to turn a strong indication into a dogmatic certainty without complete pramāṇas (proofs).

---

4. Anekānta‑based, dhārmik conclusion

Staying faithful to Jain Dharma:

• It is dharma‑yukta (in line with dharma) to:

- Recognize and honor this community as probable long‑standing sevaks of Jain mūrtis on that land. - Use this as a strong argument for their sacred connection in discussions with authorities or society.

• It is also dharma‑yukta to:

- Avoid harsh, one‑sided statements like “no other community could ever do this,” and instead use Syādvāda language: - “Bahut sambhāvya hai…” (highly probable) - “Vyavahārik dr̥ṣṭi se yeh unka dharm‑sambandh batātā hai…” (from practical viewpoint this shows dharmic connection).

This way, you honor:

• Truth (satya) – not overstating beyond evidence.
• Anekānta – acknowledging multiple possible angles.
• Ahimsā in thought – avoiding unnecessary conflict by one‑sided absolutism.

So, within Jain philosophy, your central point – that such careful preservation is strong evidence of a sacred Jain connection and niṣṭhāvan sevā – is very much supportable, as long as we express it in the restrained, conditional style that Syādvāda teaches.