She investigates the development of government bodies, military advancements, ideas about progress, and the resulting anti-colonial movements to understand how British imperialism continues to influence the present day and how the moral challenges it raised were addressed historically.
Her book "Time's Monster" examines how the discipline of history itself enabled and justified British colonialism by promoting a linear vision of historical progress, derived from the ideas of the Enlightenment in Europe.
She further examines how the idea of inevitable progress, enabled British imperialists to justify what she deems morally reprehensible colonial actions by suspending ethical judgment and prioritizing future outcomes above all else.
Satia supports her argument by examining the Birmingham gun-making industry, showing how war benefited businesses and how guns played a crucial role in British cultural and colonial expansion.
Another example of a statement made in another exhibit about Arab culture that Satia deems problematic is that “Islamic civilization arose primarily out of Arab respect for Greek and Roman accomplishments.” [16] Satia believes the various misrepresentations can lead to misunderstandings and perpetuate harmful biases against Asian people and suggests that the museum needs to update its exhibits to reflect the dynamism and diversity of Asian and Middle Eastern cultures, and to do so in a way that is accurate.
LeVine highlights Satia's exploration of how 18th- and 19th-century British historians used their craft to rationalize imperial expansion, creating a historical narrative that obscured what he sees as the violence and exploitation inherent in colonialism.
The article emphasizes and reiterates Satia's call for historians to confront their discipline's complicity in perpetuating injustice, urging a reckoning with the ethical implications of historical narratives.
[19] Writing in the Financial Times, Tony Barber states that "Satia’s book raises an important question about whether historians are prosecutors and history is a court in which judgments should be passed on accused individuals.
Jasanoff finds Satia's arguments compelling, particularly her focus on the role of historians like James Mill in perpetuating the idea that imperialism brought progress to colonized lands.
Overall, while the book raises important questions about the role of historians in shaping narratives, the review finds its approach to be flawed and misleading due to its selective evidence, generalizations, and biases.
The review also underscores Satia's emphasis on the crucial role of collaboration between the government and the private sector in fostering innovation and economic growth during the Industrial Revolution.
While this book provides valuable insights into the role of guns, violence, and empire in British history, its argument that war caused the Industrial Revolution is considered problematic by a reviewer in The Guardian, historian Emma Griffin.