I disagree that it's a useful term. It centers white people and Europeans to suggest commonality between myriad different groups of people who otherwise have nothing in common. Moreover, it falsely assumes that interactions between those countries and European powers "resulted in the global order we see today." That's backwards. Europeans were able to engage in colonialism because they were already ahead of those other countries. Just as the Romans were able to conquer Britain and Gaul for the same reason. Even with respect to European colonization, former colonies were left in vastly different circumstances. African countries colonized by the French are vastly differently situated than, say, Singapore or Hong Kong.
Not least of all, insofar as that view strongly suggests that white people and Europeans were the cause of current global power imbalances, they must be the solution. That is a dangerously counter-productive way to view the world. Even if we accept, for example, the theory that Great Britain transferred trillions of wealth from India to itself through colonization, it is a shadow of its former self and will never be able to meaningfully affect the future prospects of India.
I would posit that India should view British colonization the same way Great Britain views Norman colonization: something that shaped the country's past but something of only historical interest going forward. At least in my experience as a Bangladeshi, I think that's how most folks do view it. We don't think of ourselves as being defined by our colonial history. Indeed, my parents (who were born in what was then the British Dominion of Pakistan) have positive as well as negative things to say about colonialism.