SikhKhoj

From the other thread:
 
There are people who claim Sarbloh was written by Guru Gobind Singh (albeit in a previous incarnation). There used to be people who seriously believed the Sau Sakhi was written by Guru Gobind Singh about a century back (Kahan Singh Nabha talks about this). There are who ascribe many granths to Guru Gobind such as the Puranmasi Katha, Prem Sumarg, etc
Truth is that we are gullible as a community in general, just associate anything with the Gurus and you will have fools ready to pay millions for it or worship it. Anything with the title Pt 10 was seriously considered as a Dasam Pita Bani just because of the heading - and mind you, I personally know dozens of people who still think that way. This fact was severely misused by our enemies and corrupt people, read the Naveen Panth Parkash to read how the son of Sukha Singh Patna (Granthi) actually imitated Guru Gobind Singhs handwriting and sold the writings for lots of money.
But since most of the compositions seem to have been composed in the Gur Darbar the Dasam Granth seems to have had more general authenticity over the years. But that is one evolution, it is in this aspect that you can not deny the Amrit Sanchar proofs from within Bansawlinama. You say 'thats another topic' but the title says 'Bansawlinama on DG' and since Amrit Sanchar has no DG banis it is very important to notice a trend and actually understand why and how DG became so popular.
If people like Kesar Singh believed in the 1760s that DG was by Guru Gobind Singh they also on the other hand showed Amrit Sanchar had no Dasam Banis. The Mukatnama from around the same time equally gives no DG Bani in the Nitnem. Theres a dozen sources confirming about the Nitnem. (don't quote unauthentic Rehats such as the so called 1695 Nand Lal rehat for Jap Jaap - Pyara Padam himself published them and said they're all later writings and not of Nand Lal or the respected others)

DG gained more importance in the late 18th and early 19th century because that is when things such as DG Banis started appearing in the nitnem, and DG Banis were added to Pahul. Even if we accept the flawed source of Guru Kian Sakhian for 5 Banis (including DG) it means no source prior to 1790 mentions those Banis. Even the Prem Sumarg that is so admired on this forum does not give Dasam Banis for Amrit Sanchar, which leads me to accept that it might have been written somewhere before the 1780s.

DG did not gain prominence because it was Dasam Krit but because it was made part of Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar. And that is how our community got fooled by having our main ceremonies depend on the Dasam Granth - and even today people still do not dare to question DG because our main ceremonies depend on it. So it is a complicated issue and needs full assessment. You can't just say Kesar Singh accepts DG banis as Dasam Guru Krit and leave out the fact that despite existence of DG there was  no DG in Amrit Sanchar which shows a evolution to include more DG (this is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact you can establish by reading and taking notes of all manuscripts and you will notice the evolution yourself).

Amardeep, you were quick to post your conclusion which was in Dasam Granth favour:

I have already replied to the above statement before but let me post my conclusions. I won't add more sources for Japji Rehraas and Sohila as nitnem because 4 sources are more than enough. My sources (with the exception of Sau Sakhi) are clearly dated (1719, 1751, 1764). This in stark contrast to your sources which are dubious, false rehats such as Prehlad Rehat and Prashan Uttar and most important of all undated. Desa one is late 18th to 19th century.
Conclusion 1: Even if some writers of larger Granths were aware of Dasam Granth banis, they also were clear in the fact that Dasam Granth held no importance both in Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar. Koer Singh gives no Dasam Bani in Nitnem in 1751 and Kesar Singh gives no Dasam Bani in Amrit Sanchar in 1769. And rightly so.
Conclusion 2: The earliest source we have is the Naseehatnama, clearly dated with no dispute about its dating. It was written in 1719 and gives Japji Rehraas Sohila. Since this Nitnem is found in over 10 historical writings, most of whom have no dubious sources, it is correct to assume Japji Rehraas and Sohila is Nitnem.

Internal evidence (first 13 pannas of Guru Granth Sahib) also prove that only these three Banis are Nitnem.
Note 3: I am a practical person, I don't care about the Dasam Granth. If it was important in the mid 18th century to some then so be it, but it was not used in Nitnem or Amrit Sanchar.
Remove Dasam Granth from Nitnem and amrit sanchar and the anti lobby will be happy, who cares if someone keeps on believing in Dasam Granth, we have people who believe in dozens of Granths attributed to Dasam Pita, just don't mix them up with our daily Nitnem and Amrit.

Debunk my claims. Do not go the emotional way if you have nothing to say or can't disprove me. Don't like the topic then don't post, simple.

Resorting to insults and emotional blackmail because you know you are wrong and have no proof to say otherwise.

You guys should be ashamed for changing Guru Maryada and enforcing your own views, despite contrary historical proofs.

I am only focussing on Nitnem and Amrit Sanchaar without DG historically in the 18th century. I have 4 dated books about Nitnem without DG (and many more than I don't need to disclose, 4 dated proofs are enough to start with) compared to Amardeeps 4-5 unauthentic, undated books (Prashan Uttar, Rehatnama Prehlad, etc).
I went the Nitnem and Amrit way because Amardeep was wondering why a whole Granth was accepted by the Panth foolishly if it wasn't by the Guru. The answer is; first there was a confusion because it was commissioned by the Guru in Darbar but not Guru Krit and secondly because over time people started adding Dasam Banis to Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar as is proven beyond doubt by history.
You can add your viewpoint to the topic too, here it is. People are already getting butthurt because their preconceived notions are being proven wrong.

A possible theory:
It is not necessary that Guru Ji read every poetry by the court poets, the Guru had better things to do than to go through every single translation and work done by the Kavis. Furthermore, it is not like all poets were asked to embrace Sikhi, therefore their writings can have anti Sikh influences.

1. This is not a competition for your or my sources but we both have a different point of view and support it with historical sources. Therefore it is in that sense that I talk about your sources and mine.
You base your opinion based on the fact 1740s - 1760s literary material being heavily influenced by the Dasam Granth while I do not disagree but say that there is a clear pattern of evolution to first "introduce" (not in a conspiracy theory way) Dasam Granth and over the decades as it became an integral part of Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar the DG became an inseperable and unquestionable Granth. My theory thereby explaining how a Granth got so widely accepted unlike the Sarbloh for example who is not part of our ceremonies.
2. I am 'mixing' Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar but my initial post in the topic covers both Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar. I have to admit that in my research there is much more unanimous evidence for the Nitnem being Japji, regarding the Khande Di Pahul there is a similar trend of mostly SGGS Banis in 18th century vs the 19th century sources altough no two sources say the same.
Koer does not specify Amrit Banis (he says mantars) and nor does Kesar specify the Nitnem as far as I remember. 
I have only found Jaap in undated texts that can not properly be dated. Secondly I have had talks with scholars who say that unless a text says 'Jap Jaap Due' the 'Jap Jaap' can only refer to Japji given than in some manuscripts there is no Aunkar with Jaap while there is with Jap. A somewhat far fetched theory but still worth keeping in mind.
3. It is sad that just to fit in your narrative of '1690s' being a fruitful period for Sikh literature you are seriously considering an internal evidence alone. It is so easy to put a date on a text. Atleast one version of the text says Guru Granth therefore it is dubious, more research needed for the manuscripts. Besides that some Hukumname predating 1695 do mention Khalsa so what is your point, simply because Prashan Uttar does not mention Khalsa it is pre 1699? But on the other hand it does say Guru Granth so what about that? 
Mukatnama and Naseehatnama have no DG terminology either and they're positively dated in the 1710s to 1730s period. These are all weak proofs.
And I am not picking the Guru Granth manuscript, but I do not trust Padam he even edited words in Naseehatnama and changed the order of the verses. Such historians can not be trusted, but sometimes no other printed versions are available therefore we have to base on his version. Even his Daya Singh Rehat is much different from the Daya Singh Rehats I have seen. So as I said, you or me can't comment on Prashan Uttar its dubious and the points you say regarding no mention of Khalsa and no DG words is weak as shown above.
4. Have you even read the Prehlad Rehatnama before coming up with that fantastic theory of yours? Abchal is not the only problem with the Rehatnama, the Rehat says 'guru khalsa maniai, pargat guran ki deh'. On one instance you say Prashan Uttar is 1695 because it does not mention Khalsa, on the other hand you place Prehlad Rehat in 1695 too which clearly says Khalsa is the Body of the Guru (page 67, Rehatnamey Padam). So besides the Desa Singh Rehat I think you can scrap Prehlad Rehat too, agree?
5. Padam has dated Sakhi Rehat Ki to 1735, what is his reasoning? Any scholar can not just paste a date to a document without reasoning. Provide me his reasoning and I'll see if it looks valid or not.
6. I am hesitant about Prem Sumarg because first of all it is very difficult to date. The fact that it does include Jap Jaap but still gives Anand for Amrit leads me to believe (in an un-historian) way that it might be written somewhere during the late Misl kaal, it is not an early 18th century source...
7. The debate is not what Bani to read or what not to read from the SGGS, it is a discussion on the point how the Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar evolved in our literature to give place for more emphasis on Dasam Granth Banis. Assessing the correct Amrit Sanchar Bani will be difficult while the Nitnem is very clear if you are willing to think logically.
8.  You often quoted GS Mann for a baseless theory that irked me. GS Mann has some interesting points as does every historian. I read his opinion on the CHS Rehat and found it quite possible, I myself was stunned between the internal inconsistences and change of language between the Rehat and biography part. Bhai Kahan Singh also argues similarly about the Tankhah part of the Rehat. 
I do not only accept opinions when they agree with my thinking, I have often changed my position on topics so don't worry about that.
9. Do not piss me off by saying that there is no agreement on morning Banis, you can say it about Amrit Sanchar but I gave you clearly dated sources about Nitnel from differing decades in the early years after Guru Gobind Singh Ji. The only discussion that may be in your mind is whether to add Jaap to the Nitnem or not, not a single dated or undated source mentions Swaiye or Chaupai so yeah.
10. I will answer about the historical debate regarding DG soon. You are right, the incident mentioned by Nabha seems to have been hearsay and not a historical fact.
11. Sau Sakhi latter additions are not always spotted but some easy ways are latter dates mentioned, sometimes the name of the person adding the Sakhi was noted and so on. Some incidents have been mentioned that happened much after 1734. Lets not get off topic.
12. Not interested in that xyz stuff man. Have fun doing that.

Just to give you a small but clear example of what I mean; Twarikh I Sikhan & Prachin Panth Parkash are both 19th century sources. Both give only Dasam Banis for amrit sanchaar. Compare that to Bansawlinama (18th century) giving only SGGS Banis for sanchaar. 
That is the 'trend' I keep referring to.

Yes that is a valid point, but I was saying in case we do not consider 'commissioned' but rather poets being free in the poetry they composed.

Just a small correction, you are wrong in saying that the only writings we have from the early post Guru Gobind Singh period were influenced or familiar with the Dasam Granth.

Naseehatnama shows no Dasam Granth influence, neither in its vocabulary nor in the Nitnem section and is dated a mere 11 years after Guru Gobind Singhs death.

The Mukatnama is also clear that only the Granth (GGS) is to be followed and again gives only Japji, Rehraas and Sohila as Nitnem. The Mukatnama has been placed in 1734 and was later re-used by Kavi Santokh Singh in his magnum opus Suraj Parkash. A very important thing to note is that while Santokh Singh re-iterates the earlier Mukatnama he alters the Nitnem to suit what had become common at his time in the 19th century; instead of Japji alone, the Mukatnama of Suraj Parkash gives Jap, Jaap, Tav Prasad as Nitnem.
Thus the real early sources are free of Dasam Granth influence both in the language and the contents of the Nitnem. The influence kicks in post the 1740s with Gur Sobha, Gurbilas Patshahi 10 and Bansawlinama slowly introducing Dasam Granth (while it was not yet part of Sikh ceremonies). As the years passed we start seeing both SGGS and Dasam Granth Banis equally in Nitnem and Amrit Sanchaar with some authors even going to the extent to ascribe only Dasam Banis to Amrit Sanchar for example (see Panth Parkash - 1843)
 

Gyan Singh.
Because Amardeep was quoting Bansawlinama, Gur Sobha and Gurbilas being influenced by DG language thus showing that the only early sources we have are DG influenced, and I showed him otherwise by giving some early sources that have no mention of DG Banis nor language influence.
Let us first conclude about Nitnem. Amardeep gave 4 sources for Jap Jaap out of whom 1 he has discarded (Desa) and I am positive that he will discard one more (Prehlad) due to the internal proof I provided.

No worries, this can be a long debate so there is no hurry about the replies.
I have to say, we have to be cautious when using undated manuscripts to support either of our statements. In my opinion we should base our main conclusions on the definitely dated manuscripts and books instead of trying to first date a book which can be far off the truth and then base opinions on that. You have to agree that books that are without doubt dated to the first half of the 18th century hold more value than books we will assume as being from the early 18th century.
But yes we will definitely try to go into the Prem Sumarag but as I am busy as well I’d like to wait for you to first reply regarding my earlier posts whose main points include to debunk Prehlad Rehatnama based on internal evidence, Prashan Uttars dating, an example of 18th century Amrit Sanchaar Banis vs 19th century sources for Amrit Sanchaar with predominantly more DG Banis & last but not least the comparison how a similar document (the Mukatnama) was edited in the 19th century by Santokh Singh to accommodate more DG Banis in the nitnem (as comparable to the earlier version included in Sau Sakhi) thereby again confirming my claim that a trend existed to include more Dasam Bani over the years.

I asked regarding DG in Prem Sumarag as I believe the Prem Sumarag is not as soaked in DG references or DG Banis as you claim. Barring the single reference to Bachittar Natak and 2-3 references to Japji Jaap (Ch 1 & Ch 3), most of the ceremonies are dependant of Anand Sahib (initiation ceremony, marriage, death, ...) and not any Dasam Bani.
This shows that it might have been written in a transition phase from the Bansawlinama (solely SGGS in ceremonies) to Panth Parkash (solely DG) types. This would mean a date between the 1760s and 1810s which does make complete sense and fits in my theory.
Besides that just like we did not count Chaupa Singh Rehatnama based on the 1700 date but the 1765 oldest manuscript date, we can only count Prem Sumarag as an 1815 source as that is the date oldest manuscript of the Prem Sumarag that is found (besides hearsay there is no proof that older manuscripts exist). It would be wrong to assume that the earliest PrS was identical to the one we possess now. In fact there are already differences between Dr Leydens PrS translation (1809) and the McLeod translation hinting that the two texts are not same, with the one we possess now being longer (as a result of additions and interpolations).

And Sikhi will not grow in numbers if we do not accept Sahajdharis as an inseperable part of our nation.

Bhai Nabha says in his Mahan Kosh:
"There are lots of sahajdharis in Punjab and Sind. Sahajdharis especially those of Sind are very affectionate and devoted. Singhs, who look down upon them, are ignorant of the tenets of Sikhism"

BhagatSingh, care to elaborate on this in a seperate topic? 

And Sikhi will not grow in numbers if we do not accept Sahajdharis as an inseperable part of our nation.

Bhai Nabha says in his Mahan Kosh:
"There are lots of sahajdharis in Punjab and Sind. Sahajdharis especially those of Sind are very affectionate and devoted. Singhs, who look down upon them, are ignorant of the tenets of Sikhism"

Okay no worries.
There are hardly any books of the 18th Century where there are 'no doubt' regarding the dating. Some scholars believe the Gurbilas Patshahi 10 by Kuer Singh to be a 19th Century writing. The writing year of the Sau Sakhi does'nt seem to be established. Pyara Singh has argued for 1734 but much more research is needed. Very few scholars have looked into the Sau Sakhi.
The Bansavalinama claims a 1769 date just as the Tankhahnama claims a 1695. While the latter has been challenged, the former has'nt but im not even sure that many scholars have began critical analysis of it yet.
Yep lets continue Next week.

No worries, this can be a long debate so there is no hurry about the replies.
I have to say, we have to be cautious when using undated manuscripts to support either of our statements. In my opinion we should base our main conclusions on the definitely dated manuscripts and books instead of trying to first date a book which can be far off the truth and then base opinions on that. You have to agree that books that are without doubt dated to the first half of the 18th century hold more value than books we will assume as being from the early 18th century.
But yes we will definitely try to go into the Prem Sumarag but as I am busy as well I’d like to wait for you to first reply regarding my earlier posts whose main points include to debunk Prehlad Rehatnama based on internal evidence, Prashan Uttars dating, an example of 18th century Amrit Sanchaar Banis vs 19th century sources for Amrit Sanchaar with predominantly more DG Banis & last but not least the comparison how a similar document (the Mukatnama) was edited in the 19th century by Santokh Singh to accommodate more DG Banis in the nitnem (as comparable to the earlier version included in Sau Sakhi) thereby again confirming my claim that a trend existed to include more Dasam Bani over the years.

Just to give you a small but clear example of what I mean; Twarikh I Sikhan & Prachin Panth Parkash are both 19th century sources. Both give only Dasam Banis for amrit sanchaar. Compare that to Bansawlinama (18th century) giving only SGGS Banis for sanchaar. 
That is the 'trend' I keep referring to.

1. This is not a competition for your or my sources but we both have a different point of view and support it with historical sources. Therefore it is in that sense that I talk about your sources and mine.
You base your opinion based on the fact 1740s - 1760s literary material being heavily influenced by the Dasam Granth while I do not disagree but say that there is a clear pattern of evolution to first "introduce" (not in a conspiracy theory way) Dasam Granth and over the decades as it became an integral part of Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar the DG became an inseperable and unquestionable Granth. My theory thereby explaining how a Granth got so widely accepted unlike the Sarbloh for example who is not part of our ceremonies.
2. I am 'mixing' Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar but my initial post in the topic covers both Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar. I have to admit that in my research there is much more unanimous evidence for the Nitnem being Japji, regarding the Khande Di Pahul there is a similar trend of mostly SGGS Banis in 18th century vs the 19th century sources altough no two sources say the same.
Koer does not specify Amrit Banis (he says mantars) and nor does Kesar specify the Nitnem as far as I remember. 
I have only found Jaap in undated texts that can not properly be dated. Secondly I have had talks with scholars who say that unless a text says 'Jap Jaap Due' the 'Jap Jaap' can only refer to Japji given than in some manuscripts there is no Aunkar with Jaap while there is with Jap. A somewhat far fetched theory but still worth keeping in mind.
3. It is sad that just to fit in your narrative of '1690s' being a fruitful period for Sikh literature you are seriously considering an internal evidence alone. It is so easy to put a date on a text. Atleast one version of the text says Guru Granth therefore it is dubious, more research needed for the manuscripts. Besides that some Hukumname predating 1695 do mention Khalsa so what is your point, simply because Prashan Uttar does not mention Khalsa it is pre 1699? But on the other hand it does say Guru Granth so what about that? 
Mukatnama and Naseehatnama have no DG terminology either and they're positively dated in the 1710s to 1730s period. These are all weak proofs.
And I am not picking the Guru Granth manuscript, but I do not trust Padam he even edited words in Naseehatnama and changed the order of the verses. Such historians can not be trusted, but sometimes no other printed versions are available therefore we have to base on his version. Even his Daya Singh Rehat is much different from the Daya Singh Rehats I have seen. So as I said, you or me can't comment on Prashan Uttar its dubious and the points you say regarding no mention of Khalsa and no DG words is weak as shown above.
4. Have you even read the Prehlad Rehatnama before coming up with that fantastic theory of yours? Abchal is not the only problem with the Rehatnama, the Rehat says 'guru khalsa maniai, pargat guran ki deh'. On one instance you say Prashan Uttar is 1695 because it does not mention Khalsa, on the other hand you place Prehlad Rehat in 1695 too which clearly says Khalsa is the Body of the Guru (page 67, Rehatnamey Padam). So besides the Desa Singh Rehat I think you can scrap Prehlad Rehat too, agree?
5. Padam has dated Sakhi Rehat Ki to 1735, what is his reasoning? Any scholar can not just paste a date to a document without reasoning. Provide me his reasoning and I'll see if it looks valid or not.
6. I am hesitant about Prem Sumarg because first of all it is very difficult to date. The fact that it does include Jap Jaap but still gives Anand for Amrit leads me to believe (in an un-historian) way that it might be written somewhere during the late Misl kaal, it is not an early 18th century source...
7. The debate is not what Bani to read or what not to read from the SGGS, it is a discussion on the point how the Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar evolved in our literature to give place for more emphasis on Dasam Granth Banis. Assessing the correct Amrit Sanchar Bani will be difficult while the Nitnem is very clear if you are willing to think logically.
8.  You often quoted GS Mann for a baseless theory that irked me. GS Mann has some interesting points as does every historian. I read his opinion on the CHS Rehat and found it quite possible, I myself was stunned between the internal inconsistences and change of language between the Rehat and biography part. Bhai Kahan Singh also argues similarly about the Tankhah part of the Rehat. 
I do not only accept opinions when they agree with my thinking, I have often changed my position on topics so don't worry about that.
9. Do not piss me off by saying that there is no agreement on morning Banis, you can say it about Amrit Sanchar but I gave you clearly dated sources about Nitnel from differing decades in the early years after Guru Gobind Singh Ji. The only discussion that may be in your mind is whether to add Jaap to the Nitnem or not, not a single dated or undated source mentions Swaiye or Chaupai so yeah.
10. I will answer about the historical debate regarding DG soon. You are right, the incident mentioned by Nabha seems to have been hearsay and not a historical fact.
11. Sau Sakhi latter additions are not always spotted but some easy ways are latter dates mentioned, sometimes the name of the person adding the Sakhi was noted and so on. Some incidents have been mentioned that happened much after 1734. Lets not get off topic.
12. Not interested in that xyz stuff man. Have fun doing that.

What are you so afraid of that you are actually suggesting we should abandon historical study to find out the truth?  Are you so worried about the wool being pulled off your eyes and that you will feel embarassed for believing in something that may not have been exactly what you thought it was? 

I think it's a far larger injustice to propagate information without knowing the truth...

Amardeep, you were quick to post your conclusion which was in Dasam Granth favour:

I have already replied to the above statement before but let me post my conclusions. I won't add more sources for Japji Rehraas and Sohila as nitnem because 4 sources are more than enough. My sources (with the exception of Sau Sakhi) are clearly dated (1719, 1751, 1764). This in stark contrast to your sources which are dubious, false rehats such as Prehlad Rehat and Prashan Uttar and most important of all undated. Desa one is late 18th to 19th century.
Conclusion 1: Even if some writers of larger Granths were aware of Dasam Granth banis, they also were clear in the fact that Dasam Granth held no importance both in Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar. Koer Singh gives no Dasam Bani in Nitnem in 1751 and Kesar Singh gives no Dasam Bani in Amrit Sanchar in 1769. And rightly so.
Conclusion 2: The earliest source we have is the Naseehatnama, clearly dated with no dispute about its dating. It was written in 1719 and gives Japji Rehraas Sohila. Since this Nitnem is found in over 10 historical writings, most of whom have no dubious sources, it is correct to assume Japji Rehraas and Sohila is Nitnem.

Internal evidence (first 13 pannas of Guru Granth Sahib) also prove that only these three Banis are Nitnem.
Note 3: I am a practical person, I don't care about the Dasam Granth. If it was important in the mid 18th century to some then so be it, but it was not used in Nitnem or Amrit Sanchar.
Remove Dasam Granth from Nitnem and amrit sanchar and the anti lobby will be happy, who cares if someone keeps on believing in Dasam Granth, we have people who believe in dozens of Granths attributed to Dasam Pita, just don't mix them up with our daily Nitnem and Amrit.

GO Away.

Lots of material is lost. There was a Granth by Bhai Binod Singh which is not found anymore. There are a few other books though, will post later.

From the other thread:
 
There are people who claim Sarbloh was written by Guru Gobind Singh (albeit in a previous incarnation). There used to be people who seriously believed the Sau Sakhi was written by Guru Gobind Singh about a century back (Kahan Singh Nabha talks about this). There are who ascribe many granths to Guru Gobind such as the Puranmasi Katha, Prem Sumarg, etc
Truth is that we are gullible as a community in general, just associate anything with the Gurus and you will have fools ready to pay millions for it or worship it. Anything with the title Pt 10 was seriously considered as a Dasam Pita Bani just because of the heading - and mind you, I personally know dozens of people who still think that way. This fact was severely misused by our enemies and corrupt people, read the Naveen Panth Parkash to read how the son of Sukha Singh Patna (Granthi) actually imitated Guru Gobind Singhs handwriting and sold the writings for lots of money.
But since most of the compositions seem to have been composed in the Gur Darbar the Dasam Granth seems to have had more general authenticity over the years. But that is one evolution, it is in this aspect that you can not deny the Amrit Sanchar proofs from within Bansawlinama. You say 'thats another topic' but the title says 'Bansawlinama on DG' and since Amrit Sanchar has no DG banis it is very important to notice a trend and actually understand why and how DG became so popular.
If people like Kesar Singh believed in the 1760s that DG was by Guru Gobind Singh they also on the other hand showed Amrit Sanchar had no Dasam Banis. The Mukatnama from around the same time equally gives no DG Bani in the Nitnem. Theres a dozen sources confirming about the Nitnem. (don't quote unauthentic Rehats such as the so called 1695 Nand Lal rehat for Jap Jaap - Pyara Padam himself published them and said they're all later writings and not of Nand Lal or the respected others)

DG gained more importance in the late 18th and early 19th century because that is when things such as DG Banis started appearing in the nitnem, and DG Banis were added to Pahul. Even if we accept the flawed source of Guru Kian Sakhian for 5 Banis (including DG) it means no source prior to 1790 mentions those Banis. Even the Prem Sumarg that is so admired on this forum does not give Dasam Banis for Amrit Sanchar, which leads me to accept that it might have been written somewhere before the 1780s.

DG did not gain prominence because it was Dasam Krit but because it was made part of Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar. And that is how our community got fooled by having our main ceremonies depend on the Dasam Granth - and even today people still do not dare to question DG because our main ceremonies depend on it. So it is a complicated issue and needs full assessment. You can't just say Kesar Singh accepts DG banis as Dasam Guru Krit and leave out the fact that despite existence of DG there was  no DG in Amrit Sanchar which shows a evolution to include more DG (this is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact you can establish by reading and taking notes of all manuscripts and you will notice the evolution yourself).