Obviously, Andreessen ran into trouble when he implied that being anti-colonial was somehow bad for India, economy. And justifiably so.
Estimated share of world GDP:
India 1750: ~24%, soon after independence (1950): ~3%, now: ~7%
UK 1750: ~3% 1950: ~6%, now: ~ 3%
So clearly under colonial rule India grew significantly slower than the world average, whereas UK the colonizer grew faster. After colonial rule ended, India grew significantly faster than the world average, whereas the erstwhile colonizer grew slower. Very difficult to argue that colonialism was anything but disastrous for India.