Apologies, but I'm not sure that this supposition is correct. The Irish drink an astonishing amount of tea and love their rugby teams just as much as Gaelic football. The Indians celebrate their indigenous music dance and sports such as kabaddi as well as cricket. If anything I would say that there are strong parallels between the way that the two nations have embraced their history alongside the love/hate relationship with their former colonists. Do you have any sources or articles people could look at to use as a jumping off point?

I can't speak intelligently about nationalism in Ireland, although from what I understand, English influence on Ireland was so strong that I'm not sure there is any way to separate English from the indigenous Gaelic culture. That said, there are certain post-Colonial nations such as Indonesia and South Korea that very explicitly tried to clean the slate, and start over went it came to social and cultural legacies. India didn't choose to do so, and I'd like to look a little into why.

One thing I want to emphasize about the British Raj, is the extent to which it was totally reliant upon the collaboration and cooperation of the people's of India. The battle of Plassey, the first battle that allowed the British to control over large swathes of Bengal, was only won because Indian financiers and leading noblemen chose to defect to the British at the last minute. India, a country with something like 350 million people, was largely governed by a thousand or so British civil servants. The ratio of British civil servants to the the overall population was the lowest in the entirety of the colonial world and the system only worked because individuals at every level of the system participated in British colonialism. I don't want to underplay, or deny the abuses and crimes of the era, but so many individuals cooperated because so many people in India found the British useful.

For example, Mahatma Gandhi, was for much of his life a strident Anglophile. He was educated in London. He served as a medic in the Boer War, and was a recruiter for the British Army in WW1. The spinning wheel and homespun clothing has always been one of the major symbols of Indian nationalism. Yet the Indian National Congress relied heavily upon Bombay based textile mills for financial support through much of the independence struggle, the same textile mills destroying and supplanting traditional khadi homespun. Even the leaders of the Indian independence movement had a complicated legacy with British colonial rule.

Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Jawarlal Nehru, and Indian society from top to bottom came to the conclusion that British rule was no longer wanted during the independence. But the legacy of the British still was useful. Nehru and the leaders of the Congress saw much admirable about Parliamentary Democracy, both for ideological reasons and because there were vast ideological differences between Hindu nationalists, communists, moderates etc. within the Congress party, and regular elections were an effective way to mediate those conflicts.

Many in India wanted to abandon English for Hindi as the official language, but English simply proved to be too useful. Much of north India speaks Hindi either as a native language, or as an easily learned lingua franca. However, learning Hindi is incredibly difficult for Dravidian language speakers, and Hindi never served as a lingua franca in the south. Politics in Tamil Nadu became increasingly dominated by fears of northern domination, and so English was chosen as a national language precisely because it was no one's native language.

Those British imports adopted by Indians were rapidly Indianized. Indians prefer to drink tea (Chai) much differently than the British. Tea thrives in the hilly regions of Assam, Darjeeling, and Kerala and large plantations were created to grow Tea for export. People in India however, quickly came to prefer cheaper (and stronger) varieties of tea, the use of large amounts of heavy buffalo milk and a variety of spices. Cricket too is heavily Indianized today. It's the decisions made by the BCCI, that define the governance of cricket today and it's events in India driving the growth of limited overs T20 cricket.

This isn't really an answer to the question, but I would argue that so much of British culture was retained because it was useful to Indian needs, and only after being thoroughly Indianized.