That's debatable, to say the least. One can make the argument that British colonialism was primarily (no surprises here) extractive, not developmental. And apparently to some extent it shows in the empirical pattern[1].
None of these arguments are 100% proof of course, but they should at least weigh in on one's priors, I think.
Virtually all governments are extractive. Governments are simply property owners that happen to own an entire country.
If you are lucky, you get a stationary bandit that extracts, but does not want to kill the golden goose. The stationary bandit wants to act as a gardener and grow production.
If you are unlucky, you get a roving bandit that will pillage as much as possible in the short term, not caring about long-term growth.
It strikes me that the corruption of the Indian government is much more akin to a roving bandit. Each official wants his share, no matter the impact on growth for the nation as a whole.
None of these arguments are 100% proof of course, but they should at least weigh in on one's priors, I think.
[1] http://www.people.hbs.edu/liyer/iyer_colonial_oct2004.pdf