Damdama Sahib is where the Sikh scripture reached its final form, and it is the only one of the five takhts whose status as a takht is contested.
After the defeats
Guru Gobind Singh arrived at Talwandi Sabo in 1705, after the evacuation of Anandpur, the fighting at Chamkaur where two of his sons were killed, and the execution of his two younger sons at Sirhind.
He stayed roughly nine months. The place is called damdama, a breathing place, a resting point.
The dictation
By the tradition's account, it was here that he dictated the final recension of the Guru Granth Sahib to Bhai Mani Singh, from memory, the earlier copy having been lost.
The version produced is the Damdami Bir, and it added the compositions of the ninth Guru, Tegh Bahadur, to the collection assembled by Guru Arjan. It is the recension in use today.
The claim of dictation from memory should be read as the tradition's account. What is not in doubt is that the Damdami recension is the authoritative one and that it was completed in this period.
The seat of learning
Damdama Sahib is called the Guru's Kashi, his Varanasi, his seat of learning, and a tradition of scriptural study and of training in the reading of the scripture has continued there.
The Damdami Taksal, a seminary claiming descent from Bhai Mani Singh's teaching, takes its name from the place.
The disputed status
Damdama Sahib is the most recently recognised of the five takhts, admitted by a resolution of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee on 18 November 1966.
That recognition is not universally accepted. The Budha Dal, an order of Nihang Sikhs, rejects the resolution and does not treat Damdama Sahib as a takht. Their objection is that a takht is not something a committee can create by vote, and that the SGPC exceeded its authority in purporting to do so.
What that illustrates
A body of five whose fifth member is disputed, governed by four separate authorities, two of which do not accept the jurisdiction of the largest, that is a fair picture of Sikh institutional authority generally.
It is not a sign of disorder so much as a consequence of the founding arrangement: authority was vested in the scripture and in the assembled community rather than in an office, and no mechanism was established for deciding who convenes the community or who speaks when it disagrees with itself.