In casual conversation, I heard somebody say it was because of the inherently feudal/heirarchical nature of Hindu society, as opposed to the tribal society of the other colonies which settlers could coexist with more easily.
It was much, much more densely settled already. The Americas, Australia, and New Zealand (especially after various diseases had run their course) appeared to colonists as much more open and full of free land for the settling.
Two main reasons. One, as /u/Kitworks already pointed out, was that much of India was already very, very densely populated, and the Gangetic Plain would have been (and remains) one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Contrast this with North America and Australia, which was populated mainly by hunter-gatherers, and so could not support very large population densities. The second reason is to do with climate: the bits of North America and the Antipodes which were initially settled by Brits were areas which had temperate climates (relatively) akin to that of the UK. The same could not be said for hot, disease-ridden India.