:::::::Dictatorship of the status quo?!

Looking through the archives here, it seems that discussion of the article's name has almost entirely revolved around a suggested move to "British India".  Clearly such a move would be outright wrong.  But that still leaves us with the problem that while "British Raj" does seem to get usage as a name for the territories under the authority of the Governor-General in Council, it's also used as the name for a period (see the article lede at "History of the British Raj" by way of example).  In other words, the term is ambiguous, and thus we keep having people here and elsewhere changing terms back and forth, and I don't see how that will change so long as that ambiguity remains.  That's why I think "Indian Empire" is better; it's clearly about a country.  Alternatively, and I say this through slightly gritted teeth, we could have it at "British Indian Empire".

As for usage by historians, surely they most commonly use the simple term "India"?  Which is not of course to say that other terms don't get used (especially in book titles).

  .