Yes, because the symbol hasn't been used for tens of thousands of years before the Nazis adopted it.

India should be able to use it as much as they want. I would imagine it would be harder to make that case for a former Axis power.

Why? It's a religious symbol. Their use is completely (as in, totally, 100%) unrelated to WW2, and it was in use far before the war.

So, with all that said why should their status in that war affect it at all?

Japan is not a person. No people should be held responsible in its entirety for a mistake of the political organisation governing them. Even in most democracies, minorities get to decide on cases concerning the people in its entirety, and during the WWII, an absolute monarchy with religious powers was in effect in Japan.

My parents were not yet born and my grandparents were grade school children when the US interned Japanese-Americans but their tax money was still used to compensate those people for the injustice done to them.

You inherit everything, good and bad, from those who came before you. It's your choice of what to keep and what to drop.

Given the symbol is not inherited from Nazis, there is no heir and no heritage here. It's just a similarity here.

This line of thinking is just basic collectivism.