Bengal, Mau Mau and the limits of personal responsibility

Why is Churchill so often blamed for the Bengal famine when his response to Mau Mau abuses may be easier to establish?

The answer cites the famine's resonance and his position at the head of government, while distinguishing evidence of his reaction from proof of direct involvement.

The question contrasts the attention given to the Bengal famine with Churchill's reaction to crimes during the Mau Mau uprising. The answer points to the famine's resonance and Churchill's position as the person in charge. It also distinguishes evidence of his reaction from evidence of his involvement. A reaction can be easier to establish than the extent to which he personally directed events. The exchange does not resolve the underlying evidentiary question.