Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Who was popularly known as the "Indian parrot"?

Who was popularly known as the "Indian parrot"? Correct Answer Amir Khusru

"Parrot of India: Amir Khusrau"

  • Considered the greatest Persian-language poet of the Indian subcontinent, Amir Khusrau often described his poems as "pearls" spilling from his lips and invoking the bird that symbolized eloquence in the Indo-Persian tradition referred to himself as the "Parrot of India."
  • More than two centuries later, in 1597-98, a sumptuously illustrated copy of Amir Khusrau's Khamsa was created for the famed library of the Mughal emperor Akbar.
  • This manuscript, one of the most magnificent of India's early Mughal period, features illustrations of astounding virtuosity and superb calligraphy.
  • The compositions of Amir Khusrau Dehlavi, who lived between 1253 and 1325 CE, can be heard not only in the qawwali at Sufi dargahs (mausoleum of a saint) across South Asia but even on today’s social media platforms, music streaming sites, and at music festivals.
  • His ghazals and poems have even been re-interpreted and remixed, appearing in movies and music videos.
  • Amir Khusrau’s timelessness can be gauged from the fact that a post-modern rendition.
  • He was the chief court poet of Sultan Alauddin Khilji, eulogizing his conquests across India, but in his text Nuh-Sipihr or ‘Nine Heavens’.
  • Amir Khusrau lived through a period that saw a succession of 11 Sultans in Delhi, from Ghiyasuddin Balban to Muhamamd Bin Tughlaq, and he was the poet laureate in the court of five of them.

​Hence, the correct answer is Amir Khusrau.

Related Questions

Seven members of a parrot family are sitting on a branch in the garden. Parrot A is father of parrot E who is mother of parrot H. Parrot B is son-in-law of parrot E. Parrot C is wife of parrot A. Parrot E and D are siblings having the opposite gender. Parrot E has only one child. Parrot G is sister of Parrot B. How is parrot D related to parrot H?
Read the given statements and conclusions carefully. Assuming that the information given in the statements is true, even if it appears to be at variance with commonly known facts, decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the statements. Statements: All camels are bats. No bat is a parrot. Some camels are lions. Conclusions: I. Some bats are lions. II. No parrot is a camel. III. No parrot is a lion.
Three statements are followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to consider these statements to be true, even if they seem at variance from commonly known facts. Decide which of the given conclusions logically follow(s) from the statements. Statements: 1. All parrots are ducks. 2. No ducks is a kite. 3. All falcons are kites. Conclusions : I. Some falcons are parrots. II. No kite is a parrot. III. No parrot is a falcon. IV. Some kites are parrots.
The table below presents the data of seats won by leading political parties in 6 states. Study the given information and answer the questions that follow. Seats won by different political parties in different states Political Parties Stats State  A State B State C State D State E State F Cock 12 21 3 2 4 19 Eagle 4 3 23 2 1 13 Bat 1 21 6 1 18 5 OwI 2 1 11 .0 9 14 Parrot 15 7 3 0 6 0 Swan 18 2 6 4 2 0 What is the difference between the number of seats won by the Bat party and the Parrot party in state B?
In a code language, nasi gims sulu means parrot has beak; nasi gim mulu means eagle has beak; sulu tak mulu means parrot and eagle; nasi tak bali means beak and tail. What would bali gim mulu mean in that code language?
If 'lion' is called 'fish', 'fish' is called 'parrot', 'parrot is called 'rat, 'rat is called 'cat', 'cat' is called 'tiger', then which of the following is a bird?
Who among the following was popularly known as the parrot of India?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? Why do some French people think that Hindi is the only Indian language?
Consider the following statements:
1. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires two persons whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code require five persons.
2. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires common intention, whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code requires common object
3. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code both require presence of a prior consent
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Both create specific offence
Which of the above statements are correct?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? The writer was working at a university in which country?