Did India’s economy recover from colonial stagnation under Nehru?

I am reading Audrey Truschke's India:5,000 Years of History on the Subcontinent. In it, she makes this statement about the Nehru economy:

Nehru’s economic policies delivered moderate growth, with India’s GDP rising nearly every year from 1950 forward as, like Pakistan, India recovered from colonial-era stagnation.

Is that the consensus understanding of economists? Did the Nehru years bring about economic recovery after colonial stagnation?

My understanding is that the Nehru years were quite bad for India economically, but I would like to know what the consensus is among economist.

Along those same lines, I have heard that Britain forced India to underdevelop its manufacturing sector while India was its colony, but I have also read that British guarantees allowed India to borrow cheaply as the colonial government invested heavily in infrastructure. Is there truth to this argument? Was India's economy under colonialism as bad as Truschke suggests?