Yep, Britain in India is hopelessly complex. For most of the time they were there, the Brits (or, more precisely, the East India Company...power over which was nominally British but was actually responsible to no-one) were the balancing act in all the regional conflicts between the Marthas, Mughals, Bengals, the Portuguese, the French, etc.

It was only after the 1850s that power really consolidated, and that wasn't through war. Definitely, you had famines...but where do you the draw line or attribute agency? It is very tricky to say: this famine wouldn't have occurred otherwise (the only circumstance I have ever come across where this was true was Mao).