Aiyah.
These discussions always seem to end up focused on piddling little isolates that were almost totally incomparable with Japan.
Let's look at what Japan had. It was a centralized, stable kingdom without any country on its borders. It was geographically as isolated from Europe as an island could be and in an excellent disease environment. It's concept of unified statehood is five times as old as Britain's, if not more, and its population advantage at contact was larger still. It was already one of the wealthiest nations in the world when it opened to foreign trade, fed itself, was more literate than many European countries, and sported a well-educated governing class. Until after 1600, the technological gap with Europe was almost non-existent, and in some places Japan had a clear lead. It was one of the most hygienic places on Earth, for example.
Madagascar, the Maori, Ethiopia, Ashanti, Morocco, the Inca, the Iroquois, even Burma and Iran - they never had a chance at this level of success. They could certainly have done much better, in certain circumstances, but Japan's level of success isn't feasible.
Who could have "pulled a Meiji?"
China, obviously, the Ottomans and Russia (though I'd argue that the latter two did pull them off, then went on to great reversals regardless). Korea, in sufficiently different circumstances. Several of the larger Indian states could have done the same, had European dominance come slower or been more divided.
Likewise, a very altered situation could potentially give some states the opportunity that couldn't turn around on a single POD. Iran is like this (if either the Ottomans or Russia were removed as a threat), as might be Burma, Thailand, or a centralized power in the East Indies. But this set have huge disadvantages in most of the critical areas: location, population, wealth, resources, et cetera. You'd need a dramatic point of divergence centuries before European contact to make it possible.