indian english - "The mixture was added water": Is "add" a double-object verb?

The mixture was added water.

This sentence, written by a non-native speaker, seems somehow odd to me, but I cannot say that I find it at all ambiguous. This example sentence is written by a speaker of Indian English. If you can provide any information on whether this issue is a standard feature of Indian English, or South-East Asian English, I would greatly appreciate that. I have to make it American English, but, if this is totally standard and acceptable Indian English, or SE Asian English, I was told, then making these changes should not be done.

Is the sentence problematic by normal prescriptive rules? If so, what is the simplest remedy? If not, why does it seem odd?

The problem seems to me that the writer is treating “add” as a double-object verb (i.e., one that takes both a direct and an indirect object, such as “give.”
Example:

The boy was given a present.

(Someone) gave the boy a present.

But, in the case of "add," that doesn't seem to work, as the required preposition "to" for the indirect object in the active (non-passive) version below shows.

The mixture was added water

(Someone) added water to the mixture.