I've heard people say that, during WW1 and WW2, the British Indian Army (or more specifically the native units) was seen as cannon fodder and also that they were revered for their martial prowess (said by different people). So, did the British Government and command see native Indian units as equal to white units, or is it closer to say that they were viewed as expendable?
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the British Indian Army was seen as cannon fodder. They were used in much the same way as British troops in WW1 and 2. Sure there'd have been racism towards Indians on a varying individual and institutional basis but as a military force the Indian Army was pretty well regarded. The idea of the martial races is, of course paternalistic and condescending (in that the idea was that they were good but dim warriors whi needed to be led by white officers fo be properly effective).
Arguably the ANZACs were handled more poorly by British command than the Indian Army presumably since a lot of command level officers would have had experience and some level of fellowship with the Indian Army.
I'm no apologist for Imperialism but the idea that British commanders regarded Indian troops as more suitable for cannon fodder than whites is a bit unfair.