http://www.trimondi.de/Lamaismus/shugden.htmhere's the rough translation of the 2008 bit, i'll try to preserve the tone of it
In Feb 08 an official vote is held to decide about the practice of DS. following that 900 monks in south india were allegedly "expelled" from the tibetan community in exile, say the DS supporters. The government and DL counter that by saying that the vote was a democratic affair. The DS supporters rightly point out that the protection of religious minorities should not be subject to a majority based public vote.
A month later, in march 08, the western shugden society publishes a press kit, summarizing the discrimination against their cult once more. (quote along the lines of: many people have blind faith in you DL and believe you without any investigation...)
On april 9 and 12 the WSS sets two deadlines... you all know that bit
At the same the Dorje Shugden Society and the Lama Kundeling Rinpoche file a case with the high court in Delhi, re DL breaking human rights etc.
This was met with fury from Dharamsala. 10 secular organizations, including the associations of hotel-, restaurant-, and shop-owners signed a protest letter against the DSS, in which they say that the law suit etc is driven by china, and that it's about trying to destabilize the tibetan society, and to divert attention from the situation in tibet.
The DS followers, however, accuse the DL of being behind the uprising in tibet earlier this year. They quote the bit about how the DL says he's not after tibetan independence etc, see WSS brochure (ends with (69)). It is believable that the DS followers didn't initially have any ties with the chinese since they too have a history or anti-chinese resistance. Meanwhile, however, this probably is no longer the case, but it is understandable considering the unyielding ostracization (is that how it's spelled? you know what i mean) by the tibetan government.
Under the next main heading (krieg der schutzgoetter):
(71) The Shugden case shows clearly that a separation of state and church is non existent under the 14th DL, that instead we are looking at an autocratic religious system, a buddhocracy, that would be called fundamentalist by anybody finding something similar in a monotheistic religion.
Regardless of how one thinks of the Shugden conflict, the radical solution applied by the DL is not justifyable from an ethic, social, and political standpoint. He himself was initiated in this cult and practiced it. The cult has been part of the tibetan religious system since the 16th century. however much more important is to note that he is using his role as a secular politician to turn the entire machine (administration) of the state against Shugden devotees and their religous believes. This clearly goes against article 2 of the the Human Rights Charta.