This poster seems to think the Bengal Famine was as bad as the holocaust:

http://www.np.reddit.com/r/india/comments/28rrpv/a_largely_indian_victory_in_world_war_ii_mostly/cidyqzf

It all starts in a thread discussing the deaths of Indian soldiers in the battle of Kohima: www.np.reddit.com/r/india/comments/28rrpv/a_largely_indian_victory_in_world_war_ii_mostly/

This Nytimes account of the sacrifices of Indian soldiers in the Battle of Kohima in Eastern South Asia seems to have sparked off a debate over Hitler's holocaust, and how it really isn't as bad as it is made out to be - or more accurately, Churchill's handling of the Bengal famine makes it identical to the holocaust.

Some highlights:

Indeed. As an Indian, I find no difference in both. 1.5 million to 4 million died because of scorched earth tactics in the rice growing areas of Bangladesh and food stocks being redirected to supply the British soldiers at the cost of the average brown man. . A genocide is a genocide is a genocide. To say that the Nazi's used gas chambers and hence it is more evil is being disingenuous at best. Gas chambers, bullets, machetes, starving to death they are all evil and are acts of genocide. Please do not do a disservice to the memories of the millions of other (non Nazi victims) who have died from starvation, bullets, exhaustion, swords, machetes and various other means. . What about the fact that the allies knew about the concentration camps yet didn't bomb the railroads leading into these camps. . No matter which way you spin it, no British presence would have meant no deaths or very few.

Finally, accusations that sympathizing with the holocaust is nothing short of racism, since "white people" died:

Of course, neither the Indians (Bengalis in this case) or the natives of the New World were white. Sorry to be so direct, but is it that only white lives are important to you?

This appears to be a topic of controversy even on wikipedia in the article on the 1943 Bengal Famine

Most of the conversations appears to be in this thread, which starts after accusations that Gandhi was a sellout to the British and betrayed India.

/r/AskHistorians had a thread a while ago on the topic of the Bengal famine:

http://www.np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1c49ev/one_of_the_largest_mass_killing_of_humans_in/

I'm not an expert on India and have only studied the famine in a broader wartime context, but there are exculpatory circumstances for the British. The Bengal famine occured during some of the darkest hours of World War II for Britain, with the Japanese on India's doorstep and German submarines harassing Allied merchant marine. Under those circumstances, the British Empire's resources weren't as formidable as they otherwise would have been. The Chinese famines under Mao, while brought about by stupendous ineptitude, were during peacetime.

Another factor is intent. Few official attempts were made in China to seriously combat famine during the Three Bitter Years even though low-level officials knew its extent and high-ranking officials certainly must've had some understanding of it. Even so, the Chinese government refused foreign aid, even from other communist countries, and Mao himself expressed disinterest if some of China's many, many people died so long as the revolution continued onward. British and Indian officials, by comparison, misunderstood and underestimated the Bengal famine and therefore mismanaged their response to it -- but they still responded. Their misunderstandings and underestimations are more readily attributed to poor communication, incomplete information, and the general disruptions of war, and not to malice or malign indifference.

If I could illustrate this difference metaphorically, think of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina as these famine-stricken areas. With Bengal, British and Indian officials didn't know how many people needed to be evacuated, where they were, or how to get to them -- but they tried to help nonetheless. With China during the Great Leap Forward, Mao and other officials dismantled the levees to build something else, then pretended like nothing was wrong when the city flooded. With Ukraine during the Holodomor, Joseph Stalin dynamited the levees, summoned the hurricane, and shot those who tried to escape.

Bonus drama on the topic of Gandhi being racist, his role in the independance of India, the role of S.C.Bose in India's independance, and how Churchill and Gandhi's racism make them literally Hitler, elsewhere in the thread.

Further drama that labeling the holocaust as particularly horrific is fundamentally racist:

http://np.reddit.com/r/india/comments/28rrpv/a_largely_indian_victory_in_world_war_ii_mostly/cie0i07

In the end the drama seems to be between one group of posters that feel the British wrongs in the WW2 era makes them equivalent to the Axis powers, and another group that believe otherwise.

/r/india appears to be an endless source of drama given how politically charged this subreddit is.