As someone who both has a lot of Irish blood (read: many relatives who hate the British), and someone who considers himself an amateur historian I'd like to make a single point:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943:
"starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks"
~ Churchill 1943
I think this quote captures the ethos of British colonial rule quite nicely.
While the British ruled many of their colonies by a identifiable play-book (i.e. a superiority complex that lead to brutal governance), cultural preference, as it always seems to, lead to favorable treatment of those demographics closest to anglo-saxon / protestant / etc, characteristics.
So I assert while famines were induced by the British in both Ireland and India, the Indians would have been seen as lowlier then the Irish, by a debatable amount.
The Indian population would thus have suffered harsher under colonial rulers.
This is coming from someone who has traced his ancestry back to a British lord, which in all likelihood means a family member (likely 3-4 generations) was raped as a direct result of British colonialism.
History is brutal and everybody likes to call foul. However treatment of different, far off, peoples by colonial powers will never seek to amaze in its vicious and sickening nature.
Like this incident committed by American troops in 1901: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balangiga_massacre