The regional powers and the superpower look at their own strategic interests, and they will look at Nepal through that prism. There is no ideology involved, just national interest. So communism can also be in the interest of those who espouse democracy and vice versa. Our existence as a nation state is now caught between the strategic interest of the United States and those of our immediate neighbours. With support for communism waning, the Maoists are trying to define themselves through nationalism. They may be the biggest party, but the Maoists have proven themselves to be unreliable friends. The factionalism within the party has also reduced the credibility of the party. Outside powers are now worried that they don't have a political force in Nepal they can trust.
The Nepal Army is one strong, organised force, but the military has felt orphaned ever since the monarchy was abolished. Which is why to balance the interests of the regional powers and to guarantee their minimum security needs, there is no alternative to the monarchy. Was the monarchy abolished with a revolution or a referendum? Who are the people who have called for a constitutional monarchy, a ceremonial monarchy, a baby king, a cultural king? The country is in crisis because of a leadership vacuum and mindless politics. Those who want to benefit from the instability are fishing in troubled waters.
Despite its own Maoist problem, India is not threatened by Nepal's Maoists. After all, our Maoists lived in India and felt protected there. Whatever the slogans about integration and the constitution with the one year extension of the CA, the parties are just going to use the time to try to weaken each other. They have no other agenda.