Excessive guilt and oversized ego related?

Are excessive guilt and the asssociated emotions really something noble to have, a self-corrective mechanism or really a big problem by themelves? A healthy dose of guilt can surely be a great aid in being a channel for the 'small still voice within' to filter out and exercise a guiding effect in our lives. Nobody is perfect- as long as it is accepted that what is right has to be adopted, mistakes however big, are only devaitaions from the path. The greater the deviation, the greater must the urgency be, in retracing the steps. As simple as that.

But when guilt becomes a morbid obsession alsomot to the point of being self-destructive, driving individuals and societies to perpetually wallow in sorrow, is it good for anyone at all? A wrong done in the past cannot be undone even by a thousand rights - what to speak of a thousand depressing elegies from a guilt-obessessed psyche. The only thing that can be done now, is to resolve firmly, that it will not be repeated and take all steps in that direction. But an obsession with guilt never allows this- clinging on to cannot benefit and will not affect the present or the futur in any way. Rather, it will result in terminal illness and a desire for self-destruction.

This is so obviously clear to commonsense reason. But why do individuals and societies indulge in guilt-binge to the breaking point? Rather than put corrective mechanisms in place so that atleast the future is secure, why do so many people chosse instead, to chase shadows from the past? One example is the attitude of 'western educated' and 'liberal' (so-called) High-caste Hindus, towards their fellow orthodox and towards their tradition. Their guilt-obsession turns into an astonishing rage at their own past and exaggerates and reads into it what sometimes is even unlikely! Or continue peddling opinions framed by colonial propagandists about ill-treatment of the 'lower' castes without any independent investigation of their own. Take an article such as this recent piece from BBC. A telling excerpt:

And Phool Kumari belongs to that group of nearly 240m Indians who have been traditionally kept out of the Hindu caste system.

Mostly considered unworthy of touch by the higher castes, some even consider their shadow to be polluting.

Now caste oppression today, or for some centuries is undeniable in various places in India. But was it so universal and widespread that it was a 'tradition' of the Hindu caste system? Since when did the 'polluting shadow' idea become tradition? The tone of the sentence seems to imply that actually this is even the present-day position - is this true?

A more objective and careful analysis of the history of past sevaral centuries will show the unbelievable flexibility and variety in the 'Hindu caste system'. So also will the phenomenon of unsettled tribes continually settling down and adding new jatis to the caste structure- first arriving at an uneasy contract as the 'outsider' and slowly working the way up the social hierarchy through gradual mutual understanding. The fact that anthropologists and geneticists find it difficult to draw the line between the so-called 'lower' end of the caste structure and unsettled tribes- showing up a seamless contuinity in the level of settlement and acclimatization with the caste system of the settled castes and leading to gradual 'sanskritization' is proof enough of this. Fact is, Muslim and British incursions heavily disrupted this gradual diffusion and assimilation of settled and unsettled castes and tribes- leading to mutual suspicions and thus to the modern anathema to the 'outsider', recently settled tribes jostling for a place under the already colourful banner of the ancient caste order.

All this just shows how breathtakingly complex the phenomenon of caste is, in India. But writers such as those of the piece I quoted above show utter insenstivity to this compexity and typically indulge in mudslinging at the 'Hindu caste system'. But I have observed a pattern. Often, these liberal sounding pieces are penned by none other than western educated, self-alienated elites of the upper castes. Most extreme communists and extreme left-wingers in India who have nothing but rage for the Hindu society, are indeed drawn from the Hindu upper castes. It is their obsessive guilt that shows up as rage. As I said earlier, guilt is good. Upper-caste guilt at present social conditions can bring good, if it can lead to practical, constructive, wholesome steps to correct the problems. But a rambling, pointless agenda guided by rage against their own tradition can bring nothing but ultimate self-destruction. It is no surprise then, that such Hindus most often are 'all talk and no action'. Themselves alienated from even the many positives that their tradition can offer such as yoga and spirituality, ceaselessly attemtping de-nationalize themselves, demoralized, they often have no say in setting the course of the greater Hindu society, which too, just ignores them.

Thinking of this, I conclude, such excessive guilt is just the obverse of an oversized ego. 'Oh how could we have been so bad' is the driving thought. 'Because we are yet human and not divine' should be a straightforward answer from a less egoistic psyche, 'accepting our mistakes, acknowledging our humanity, we draw closer to the ideals of humanism and set the course aright' would be the logical conclusion. Not the idea of 'perpetual refusal to accept or to reconcile' and the logical desecnt into terminal cycle.