Unfortunately, the whole middle section of the route has exprienced a demographic explosion followed by political destabilization and muslim radicalization, and you would not want to traverse these countries over land.
It makes sense to remember that all these countries were just fine very recently such as to be passable by a bus full of hippies, before they started making a bad use of the area they take up on the globe.
> you would not want to traverse these countries over land.
You probably wouldn't. But people do and it seems fine. Turkey and Iran have actually decent train networks now, so you don't even have to go by bus. I think you can go all the way to Zahedan. Cross at Taftan and then bus to Quetta, but from there you can hop on the train again to India, cross to Amritsar and on to Calcutta.
Taftan to Quetta: a bus, leaves before sunset to travel out of the worst heat. Takes about 10-12h. The bus has two massive diesel engines, one in the front driving the bus forward, one in the back to drive the AC.
In the 600 or so km about half of it has some pavement, rest is just desert. The bus does not slow down for potholes, dunes, anything. You jump a lot.
Every couple of hours bus stops, half of the time for people to go in the desert to squat and the other half to pray. Try not to mix them up, could be dangerous.
The route comes within a few km of Afgani border but that does not matter the baluchistan region does not have much of dealings with the central govt.
Quetta is very-very dangerous for westerners, lots of kidnappings. I only found out later, thankfully.
The train from Quetta to Lahore takes about 26h. There is 1st class AC sleeper, 1st class sleeper and second class.
The 1st class feels like it was last updated before independence.
The train crosses wast deserts where temperature is 50C-ish.
This was more than 15 years ago, things might have changed YMMV.
Leaving aside any physical ability etc., there are a bunch of places that I might have done 30 years ago but wouldn't today whether because of an explosion in popularity or just because it feels as if it would be less safe. (Of course there are also places in e.g. Eastern Europe I might have been less inclined to travel to at one point.)
> It makes sense to remember that all these countries were just fine very recently
The entire Middle East was colonized and f_cked up over a century by the US, UK, and France.
I'm sorry that I can't visit these countries now, but (assuming you are a white Westerner) to say that they were "fine" and then blame them for current problems - is a bit steep.
You should spend more time talking to non-white people from non-white countries. Just this afternoon I was chatting about global affairs with an economist from an Asian country, and although he is quite "liberal," his educated and very-well-informed point of view on global conflict is very different from what you'll read in American newspapers.
Russians are constantly asking themselves this question, "aren't we taking up the area in vain".
The corollaries to these questions may surprise you, though.
I can see how you are are offended by this question, though. People in California had a long thought about it and has decided for the whole world that this question is not permitted, like they decide everything for the whole globe.
I am not in California. Rest assured, though that not only is my family background from one of your “middle section” countries in question, I have many Ukrainian and Russian friends. Let us not pretend you’re referring to some incipient Middle Eastern or Central/South Asian Chaadayev here.
I can't believe none of your Ukrainian and Russian friends grade countries in terms of whether they take up the area in vain. They may not use this specific wording, though they might as well do.
I wonder if "middle section" countries also use the arguments that they were so great N centuries ago that they don't have to reason their existence today.
Actually, what my Russian advisor (studied at MEPhI and Kurchatov) said was that establishing industry in Russia is a less effective use of money than just pumping oil esp. taking into account the cost of heating the factories so it might as well be moved to Malaysia where the climate is better. He also said Turkey was better than Sochi for vacation. Does that answer your question?
As you can see he is thinking about that all right.
The question for him is whether we want to uproot the world and rebuild it in the most energy-efficient way possible. That would affect most everyone in the world: I'm not sure the Malays want to be that global industrial hab. Perhaps they enjoy their jungle more than hosting industry for the whole world. Seeing as they already have lots of it.
