On February 10th this year, Facebook board member Marc Andreessen claimed that "anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic for the Indian people for decades. Why stop now?" This was a response to India's rejection of Facebook's Free Basics initiative to provide Internet to poor Indians. His remarks were sharply criticized by both Indians and founder Mark Zuckerberg.
Is there any validity to this statement? What could he be referring to (and in what time period)? Have such policies been put in place, specifically ones that could be construed as "anti-colonial," that have potentially hindered India's development?
I'm not a professional historian, but I do know a bit about this. Following independence, India implemented policies of nationalization, import substitution, and extreme trade protectionism. The purpose of these policies was to encourage the growth of local industries. The problem was that these local industries required large subsidies to operate, and they produced goods of inferior quality. It was only after economic liberalization in the early 90's that the Indian economic boom really took off.
A good example of the impact of India's policies was when Portuguese Goa was annexed. Under Portuguese rule, residents there had access to the global markets which provided decent-paying (relative to India) jobs, a wide variety of consumer goods, and an exchangeable currency. After annexation, India's protectionist policies choked off Goa's economy, causing a decline in the standard of living.