A potentially record-strength Super El Niño is raising concern about India’s monsoon, but historical rainfall data cited by meteorologists shows that the intensity of the Pacific climate phenomenon does not automatically determine the scale of a rainfall deficit across the country. That distinction matters for cities, which depend on seasonal rainfall for water supply, reservoirs, agriculture-linked food systems and protection against drought-related economic stress.
The World Meteorological Organisation has said that a strong El Niño is developing, while some weather agencies believe its intensity has already crossed 2 and could reach around 2.5. The report also says that the present event could exceed the intensity records of earlier strong El Niño episodes. However, meteorologists cited in the report caution against treating the strength of El Niño as a direct forecast of India’s total monsoon performance.
The historical record is less straightforward than the usual public explanation. Four Super El Niño episodes have been identified in the past, although reliable scientific measurements for the 1877-78 event are not available. The three later episodes—in 1982, 1997 and 2015—had estimated intensities of between 2 and 2.5. Yet India’s seasonal rainfall did not perform uniformly badly during those years.
In 1982, rainfall was 11.4 per cent below the long-period average. In 2015, the deficit was 12.7 per cent. But in 1997, India received 0.2 per cent more rainfall than the average, despite the strong El Niño. The comparison shows why a single climate indicator cannot explain the experience of every monsoon season or every region.
The country’s largest recorded rainfall deficit, according to the figures cited in the report, occurred in 1972, when rainfall was 22.3 per cent below the long-period average. That year was associated with a moderately intense El Niño rather than the strongest category. In 2002, a weak El Niño coincided with a 20.3 per cent deficit. The figures therefore complicate the assumption that the most intense El Niño must necessarily produce the most severe drought conditions in India.
The relationship between El Niño and the Indian monsoon is influenced by conditions elsewhere in the climate system. One of the factors highlighted by the meteorologists is the Indian Ocean Dipole, or IOD. A positive IOD has, in some past years, offset the negative effect associated with El Niño. The report says that the IOD was positive during the monsoon seasons of 1982, 1997 and 2015, when the impact of strong El Niño on India’s rainfall was not uniform.
That apparent protection is not absolute. The report notes that the IOD was also positive in 1972, when India experienced its largest recorded rainfall deficit. This is an important qualification for public policy: even when a potentially favourable oceanic factor is present, it cannot be treated as a guarantee of normal rainfall. Climate signals operate together, and their combined effect can vary from one year to another.
The evidence also exposes a measurement problem. Meteorologists disagree over the intensity of the 1877 El Niño. Some believe it may have exceeded 3, while others place its maximum near 2.5. Instrument-based scientific observations were not available at the same level during that period, making comparisons with modern events uncertain. Historical accounts nevertheless describe severe drought-related deaths in India, China and other countries during that time.
This uncertainty is particularly relevant when climate records are used to communicate risk. A headline warning about a Super El Niño can suggest a direct and inevitable chain—from a stronger Pacific event to a failed Indian monsoon. The historical numbers cited in the report do not support such certainty. They indicate that El Niño is an important risk signal, but not a complete seasonal forecast for India.
The current season is already showing uneven rainfall performance. Although the El Niño began intensifying from July, the report says India’s overall rainfall deficit has crossed 12 per cent. Many parts of the country have received less rain, while only a smaller number of regions have recorded normal rainfall. This uneven distribution is as significant for public administration as the national average.
For cities, an uneven monsoon can create several pressures at the same time. A rainfall deficit can affect reservoirs and municipal water planning, particularly where cities depend heavily on seasonal inflows. It can also increase demand for groundwater and tanker supplies. At the same time, concentrated rainfall in some areas can produce flooding even during a season that is deficient at the national level. A countrywide average therefore cannot fully describe the conditions faced by individual urban regions.
The same issue applies to food and economic systems. Poor rainfall in agricultural regions can affect food availability and prices, while urban households experience the consequences through household budgets and demand for public support. Drought conditions can also increase migration pressures and strain city services, although the supplied report does not quantify these effects for the current season.
The institutional challenge is to avoid using one climate indicator as a substitute for local monitoring. The report attributes the assessment about the interaction between El Niño and the Indian Ocean Dipole to G C Debnath, Deputy Director General of the weather department. His comments underline that the rainfall response depends on more than the intensity of the Pacific event. For government agencies, that means seasonal planning must continue to consider regional rainfall distribution, reservoir conditions and local water demand rather than relying only on a global headline indicator.
The historical cases also show why preparedness cannot be calibrated only to the formal category of an El Niño event. The 1972 and 2002 figures demonstrate that weak or moderate El Niño conditions can coincide with substantial national rainfall deficits. Conversely, 1997 shows that a very strong El Niño can coexist with rainfall slightly above the long-period average. Risk management based only on intensity would therefore leave public authorities exposed to outcomes that past data has already shown to be possible.
There is also a limitation in the available evidence. The report identifies the current event as potentially exceptionally strong and gives the present national rainfall deficit as more than 12 per cent, but it does not provide a detailed regional breakdown, reservoir data, municipal water-demand figures or a final seasonal assessment. It also does not establish how the current Indian Ocean Dipole will evolve or how its interaction with El Niño will affect different parts of the country.
What the evidence confirms is narrower but important. A Super El Niño is a serious climate risk signal, yet its intensity alone cannot establish that India will suffer its worst monsoon deficit. Historical rainfall outcomes have varied widely: strong El Niño years have produced both deficits and near-normal or slightly above-average rainfall, while weaker events have coincided with some of the country’s largest shortfalls.
The developments that deserve monitoring are the event’s measured intensity, regional rainfall patterns, the behaviour of the Indian Ocean Dipole and the effects on water systems across the country. For urban India, the central lesson is that climate resilience depends less on a single forecast label than on the ability to respond to uneven water availability, localised drought and concentrated rainfall at the same time.
