The difference being that one was an act of cruel apathy, their lives were valued less than the war effort (one could even argue that the British hoped to ultimately save lives), while the other actively reveled in and advanced the industrialised mass murder of entire peoples.

I think this is letting Churchill off a bit too easily.

At the time, India was under British rule. Both the British government, and the Crown knew what was going on in Bengal, and chose inaction. Churchill himself openly held anti-Indian sentiment calling them “a beastly people with a beastly religion” and that any sort of relief sent would accomplish little to nothing as as Indians are “breeding like rabbits.”

This man actively chose to let people under his rule starve.

It’s also worth pointing out that India was a significant presence during WWII, “By the end of the war, it had become the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945”, and a significant contributor to the state of things is how hard the British colonial rule pressed the local industries for the sake of the war. The military sucked up a lot of produce leaving scraps for the domestic market, which was significantly upcharged so only the rich classes could afford anything.

In the system that the British Government used to procure goods through the Government of India, industries were left in private ownership rather than facing outright requisitioning of their productive capacity. Firms were required to sell goods to the military on credit and at fixed, low prices. However, firms were left free to charge any price they desired in their domestic market for whatever they had left over.

Further, the British government censored media, forbidding them from reporting on the famine. Things didn’t really take a turn until The Statesman published photos of the famine, which made it around the world and the British government stood there with egg on their face.

Churchill on the other hand, ate well.