WWII offered a source of capital (people stashing their money into a neutral state, and many never asking for it back) and some industrialization, but the Switzerland we think of today is really a product of the late 50s/1960s.
Economic growth in europe only really took off to levels we think of as "today" after 30+ years of intense postwar growth. It was rich before that, but still very rural. Movies of the era are quite revealing.
I an genuinely curious if there is an argument against Switzerland et al being counterexamples to the colonialism/wealth argument. The strongest one I can think of would be that Switzerland et al benefitted from proximity to capital and to the new techniques discovered by capital.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-...
And conversely, all those fabulous silver mines didn't exactly leave the Spaniards with a head-start in modernisation.
Industrialization happened in this time period. India did not industrialize as rapidly or to the same extent as Europe and the US.
Share of world income is a zero sum game. Some of that decline is made up for by increased income elsewhere. The absolute income in India certainly did not decrease from 1700 to 1952.
These numbers would be more useful with a comparison to China, Russia and Japan over the same time period (all of which industrialized later than Europe and the US).