You are right about one important thing: what you have written is a logical reconstruction, not something directly attested in Jain scriptures or standard Jain historical granths.

From the Jain-dharma point of view, a few clear distinctions are helpful:

1. What is in āgamas / granths / tirth–vaibhav literature

- Our scriptures and traditional Jain histories do talk about: - Matang / aboriginal tribes (e.g., in stories like Mātangpati etc.) - Outcaste groups living in forests or on the margins of caste society - Destruction of tirths, shifting of idols, and Jains sometimes hiding mūrtis during invasions. - But I am not aware of any accepted Jain textual source that clearly says: - “Matang vaṃsh migrated from north to Deccan specifically to protect 3 Jain idols from Manipur,” - or that they “adopted another religion, buried the idols in Mana village, and took up rope making” as a recorded Jain historical event.

1. What you are doing: historical inference

- You are combining: - Known social facts: caste rigidity in the north, tribes called “outcaste”, people living in forests, occupational stigma (like rope-making). - Known Jain patterns: Jains migrating to preserve practice, idols being shifted/hidden when tirths were destroyed. - From these, you are building a possible narrative: - “They must have moved south to keep practicing Jainism,” - “Some settled where the three idols were,” - “To survive, they adopted another religion outwardly and buried the idols,” - “Occupational changes again made them outcast.” - As logical storytelling, this is coherent. But from the strict Jain-pramāṇ point of view, it is kalpanā (hypothesis), not śrut / itihās (attested tradition).

1. How Jain tradition usually treats such narratives

- In Jainism, we differentiate: - Srut-pramāṇ / granth-pramāṇ – based on scriptures and well-accepted Jain historical works. - Loka-prasiddhi / sthānīya-vārtā / oral tradition – local stories, family or community narratives. - Tarka / yukti – logical possibilities or reconstructions. - Your version falls in the third category: yukti-based reconstruction. - As long as you clearly say: “This is not written in scripture; it is my logical understanding based on social context and oral hints,” then you are being honest and not mixing it with śāstrīya satya.

1. Jain-dharmic caution

- Jains are encouraged to be very careful before stating: “This happened because of Jain dharma” or “They did this to protect Jain idols,” unless we have: - Firm textual evidence, - Or a strong, continuous community tradition accepted by Jain scholars. - Otherwise, it is safer to say: - “It could have happened like this, given what we know about caste, tribes, and tirth-destructions,” - but not “This definitely happened.”

1. What you can confidently say

You can reasonably state: - Matang / similar tribes were often treated as outcast and lived in forests. - Strict caste systems pushed many groups to the margins, both in the north and in the Deccan. - Jains historically have: - Migrated to new regions to preserve practice, - Hidden or moved idols when tirths were attacked, - Sometimes blended outwardly with the local majority for survival. - Rope-making and similar manual trades often became markers of “low status” in caste society.

Beyond this, connecting one specific community + one specific village + three specific idols + exact migration route and motive is your hypothesis, not established Jain-history.

So, from a Jain-dharma purity standpoint:

• It is fine to present this as a possible, logical story of how things might have unfolded.
• It is not correct to present it as “Jain scripture-based fact” or “Jain historical consensus”.
• Keeping that line clear respects both Jain pramāṇ and your own reasoning.

If you want to read general Jain stories where Matang/tribal communities and social status are discussed (not this specific migration theory, but the broader background), you can see one such story here: Abhaykumar and Matangpati