With a genuine, friendly to other Asian nations, anti colonial approach of the Japanese, it would certainly not have been out of the question to win the nationalist chinese over to their cause. It might have been that such a development would have completely excluded the allies from any influence in China, (or what was left of it after the Japanese conquests).
Whether it would have made much difference I doubt, as the Japanese, controlling large chunks of China, were as unable as the nationalists to rout the communists and having the Chinese armed forces and politicians on their side would soon have proved just as big a liability to them as it later proved to the allies, mainly the Americans.

India would have been much more difficult, first because the anti colonial nationalists were ideologically a utter diverse bunch and nigh impossible to unite. Secondly it is probable that the British would have been capable to suppress any uprisings as any sense of military strategy as well as the necessary weapons were absent on the nationalist side. Thirdly, the man who would have been most likely as a figurehead for Japanese interference in Indian affairs, Chandra Bose, was much more inclined to be client with the German nazi's than with the Japanese.

Would it have happened this way, I think it would have certainly not helped Japan's case, it would have done more to spread out wider its already thinly manned occupation/protection troops over Asia and would have greatly added to their already precarious supply lines. Apart from that such developments in China might have led to a much earlier involvement of the Soviet Union in the hostilities in North China, a thing that Japan was anxious to avoid during the entire war.

Anyway, as already stated in this thread, one did not need to be a clever Asian nationalist to see that the Japanese were not a hair better than the European colonialist rulers in their designs on the future of the Asian territory and it is logical that nothing came of it.