Royal College was at the butt end of severe criticism both in print and radio after Royal players physically disturbed the Trinity ‘Haka’ at the 2nd leg of the Bradby played at the Royal College Sports Complex.
As a spectator and an old Royalist, I was not only stunned but nauseated by a school boy team in Sri Lanka attempting to imitate the All Blacks traditional challenge issued to their opponents before an International Rugby Union match.
The Haka performed by Trinity is completely alien to our culture and schoolboy values. The Haka performed exclusively by the New Zealand national side has a distinct culture connected to that great rugby playing nation. Spectators all over the world look forward to this New Zealand specific performance delivered with much passion. But an attempt to imitate it by a mere school boy side in Sri Lanka, should not have been permitted by Trinity authorities. In any event, during a period where violence, murders and abductions are taking place in Sri Lanka with impunity and during a year where schoolboy rugger matches were regularly disrupted by assaults on players and referees, saner counsel should have prevailed in permitting the Haka to be performed during the Bradby shield match.
Nevertheless, I would have appreciated if Trinity had thought of performing a genuine version of a non confrontational challenge inspired by the Veddha war dance and if it was performed at every match Trinity played including the 1st leg in Kandy. After all, Veddas are the Sri Lankan equivalent of the Maoris of New Zealand.
That the so called Haka had no traditional value to Trinity was highlighted by that poison pen of Sharm De Alwis when he wrote a disrespectful and vituperative article in The Island of 25th June 2013. He said that a few years ago another kiwi coach Nigele kroner introduced the Haka to Trinity. I cannot recall Trinity having ever performed the Haka before. The question arises why it was not performed during the 1st leg in Kandy under the guidance of the other Kiwi coach Neil Foote. Whether it was written by one Rochelle Palipane Gunaratne ( Island- 21st June 2013 ) in order “to pay homage to past generations of Trinitians” or whether the words composed “ were sent to New Zealand to Mike Kawana, a well known elder of the Rangitane tribe and taught to the team by Nathan Riwai-Couch, Junior coach and himself”, did not absolve itself of the insult to New Zealand and to Sri Lankan sensitivities.
Sharm De Alwis wrote that Ravi Perera with a “common or garden name wrote – No Hakka, this is Sri Lanka. “ He came to the conclusion that if Haka is not good, Rugger also should not be played by Sri Lankans as Rugger is an alien game and therefore we should play Chuk Gudu and get rid of sarongs and sarees as they are Indian. These are thoughts of a small mind going from the sublime to the ridiculous. If so, the English language should not be spoken by the Sinhalese and Tamil people. The difference is that Haka is dispensable in Rugger.
Basic courtesy in making match arrangements by Royal requires Trinity inform Royal of its intention to perform the Haka. Royal was never informed. Instead the press was informed. Royal in its official press release has adverted to this fact. I am reliably made to understand that even the Trinity Principal was unaware that his team was to perform the Haka on that day. If Trinity kept to its faith with Royal as hitherto done, I am sure Royal would have prepared the team to accept the challenge in an appropriate manner. Rochelle Palipane Gunaratne wrote that “officials and teams involved were pre informed”. But Sharm de Alwis in his haste to insult Royal college and its Principal for reasons only best known to himself, arrogantly contradicted Gunaratne and said “ media was never informed and neither were the authorities of Royal College, as it was not necessary to do so. But referee Dilroy Fernando was kept informed.” I might add that old Trnitian S.W. Chang giving the TV commentary, knew that the Haka was to be performed. According to Sharm De Alwis, even the IRB was informed and approval obtained, but it was thought fit not to inform Royal. It would be interesting to read the correspondence between Trinity and the IRB.
If according to Sharm de Alwis, the International Rugby Board had “accepted” the Trinity Haka, then why did Trinity have to hide this fact and spring a surprise on the hyped Royalists. In fact, it would have been greatly appreciated by thousands of Royalists and Trinitians in particular, past and present, if the match organizers were informed so that a mike could have been arranged to hear the Haka painstakingly taught “in homage of past generations of Trinitians”. I state that the Trinity attitude was uncharacteristic and solely designed to surprise and demoralize the Royalists at the start of the match. It unfortunately achieved the opposite result as the match result showed. But Trinity achieved their 2nd objective when the unsuspecting Royal players disrupted the Haka and opened up the poison pens against Royal.
The uncalled for arrogance of some Trinity Yakas in the recent past and that of cheer leaders like Sharm De Alwis, is nauseating. The latter is one who justified the shameless act of members of the Trinity scrummage who invaded the field last year in an attempt to stop the match when one Trinity player was yellow carded, alleging that the referee was cheating in favour of Royal. By stopping the match for a significant period of time in order to intimidate the referee, Trinity was successful in halting Royal’s momentum at that time. He did not decry the misbehavior of a set of Trinity officials including the Principal who are expected to be far more mature than schoolboys. If Sharm de Alwis wanted the Royal players more harshly punished than rapped on the knuckles, what punishment would he recommend to members of the Trinity scrummage and Principal of Trinity for his comments to the Referee as a “penalty to fit the crime of having dragged into the mire the game and the school.” It is noted that Trinity apologized for the comparatively more serious breach of conduct , only after Royal wrote asking if Trinity could guarantee their safety in Kandy.
Despite all these aberrations and provocations, all Royalists are glad that the Principal of Royal College, in consultation with relevant Royal old boy community and staff, took the correct step to get the Captain to apologise to their counter part in person and to Trinity, for their inappropriate behavior. To my mind, crossing the line was not the issue. The very act of disrupting the Haka from anywhere in the field, despite the unwarranted provocation by Trinity, was wrong and we Royalists are sorry to say the least.
But the lesson learnt was that the game is bigger than the Haka and those who try to rub Royal College name in the mud must understand that Royal College is too big an institution to be bullied by cheap gimmicks and rhetoric. Nothing more must be done to exasperate the good will built over the years , so that the players can be left to enjoy themselves and each others company on and off the field and entertain the spectators who form an integral part of this great series. The class of Rugby that players of Royal and Trinity produce at a Bradby shield can never be brought down.
I sincerely hope that the great traditions and friendship built over the last 50 years will not be disrupted by cheap gimmicks in the future as it is not part of the Bradby shield culture. I will die a thousand times if Royal does a similar thing alien to our culture and Royalist traditions.
The Haka was an unfortunate and ill conceived aberration. Royal players reaction though wrong was blown out of proportion. Even the Referee did not penalize Royal. Those who rushed to condemn the Royalists should have been large enough to acknowledge and applaud the Royalists, who were aggressive in their play in attempting to erase a 12 point deficit, for not committing a single on field offence warranting a yellow card or a red card. Similarly, we acknowledge the Trinitians whose Haka was disrupted, for not reacting with on field offences.
The hidden intention was shown in Sharm De Alwis in his article about the Haka, ridiculing the Royal College Principal with an incident a few years back involving a sportsman at Royal who is a son of a cabinet minister. It is comparable to ‘ fools who rush in where angels fear to tread’. I will not comment about the Trinity cricket coach as its not appropriate.
Finally, I wish to draw the attention of all Royalists and Trintians to events during the last couple of years which showed a trend towards Trinity attempting to create issues specially during the Colombo leg. I do not wish to elaborate for want of space. But suffice it to say that saner counsel should prevail. Royal is too big a school and can take hits while others may not. This is because Royalists past and present consider they will continue to repay the debt they owe to their alma mater until their last breadth. I am sure, Trinity will also look to the end if road blocks are not placed by misplaced over enthusiasts.
